UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #10

[WaxLyrical]

Baby F wasn't on Heparin or Insulin. I'm not sure what that has to do with this trial.

A cursory search of the interwebs suggests Heparin is a common ingredient in TPN bags. If there are already previous instances of insulin being put in TPN bags by accident instead of Heparin and causing the hypoglycaemia we see in this case, then I feel less certain that it couldn’t have been an error by the pharmacy. JMO.

 

[Tortoise]

I know but im not sure an injury that significant wouldnt be deemed an inflicted painful stimulus. The baby would have been bleeding out when checked by the doc around ten but nothing to suggest the presence of a significant injury noted by him. Not even a patch of redness or bruise, a seemingly content baby.

of course it would be a painful stimulus, the baby was said to be screaming!

It doesn't mean it was life-threatening.

JMO

 

[esther43]

Her comment was in relation to baby A's IV fluid bag.

Thanks Tortoise!
I wonder why she forwarded that as a suggestion in relation to child A?

Sure i read at the beginning that LL thought the bag weren't what it seems & wanted it kept aside or something on them lines. (In police interview) ?
Or was that mentioned for the nxt insulin case coming up?

Just thought I'd attach the quote in case anyone thought I was mixing up the babies.


"When interviewed by police regarding the circumstances over Child A's death, Letby said she had given fluids to Child A at the time of the change of shifts.
She said within "maybe" five minutes, Child A developed 'almost a rash appearance, like a blotchy red marks on the skin'.
She said she had wondered whether the bag of fluid "was not what we thought it was".
In an interview in June 2019, Letby said she had asked for all fluids to be kept from the bag at the end to be checked, but the prosecution said there was was no record of her having made such a request.
It was suggested by police that Letby had administered an air emolus. She replied it would have been very hard to push air through the line."
Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders

 

[esther43]

Yes. What a curious line of thought for LL in relation to child A.
I am interpreting this as LL indicating that she suspected some sort of foul play from as early as child A but perhaps it's just me who is interpreting it in this way?

 

[Tortoise]

A cursory search of the interwebs suggests Heparin is a common ingredient in TPN bags. If there are already previous instances of insulin being put in TPN bags by accident instead of Heparin and causing the hypoglycaemia we see in this case, then I feel less certain that it couldn’t have been an error by the pharmacy. JMO.

It's not in the evidence that the baby was receiving heparin, and we can only discuss evidence in the trial.

Not only that, but LL's defence hasn't raised pharmacy error as a possibility.

 

[MsBetsy]

Only the pathologist recognised the injury to the liver, but could be from the resus.

I thought there was no autopsy performed for Child E.

Dr. Evans said there was no medical explanation for the bleeding but that a medical tool could have been used to cause the injury, IIRC.

 

[ColourPurple]

Yes. What a curious line of thought for LL in relation to child A.
I am interpreting this as LL indicating that she suspected some sort of foul play from as early as child A but perhaps it's just me who is interpreting it in this way?

If she's guilty then by suggesting there may have been something in the IV fluid, then she's pointing the police away from what the medical experts/prosecution allege did happen to Baby A. But curious that she's chosen something very close to what she is alleged to have done in the two insulin poisoning cases later on.

There's no evidence that she did ask them to keep the fluids to check what they were (and she didn't even remember suggesting it till June 2019), but even if she had done, as the suspected cause of death was air embolus, if guilty, she would still have been deliberately pointing in the wrong direction.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I thought there was no autopsy performed for Child E.

Dr. Evans said there was no medical explanation for the bleeding but that a medical tool could have been used to cause the injury, IIRC.

I hope I’m not muddling cases. Yip I did. Apologies. Original c.o.d was nec. Parents didn’t request a pathologist to review the case. I thought excuse my muddling that the bleed would have been a good reason for one.

 

[MsBetsy]

Yes. What a curious line of thought for LL in relation to child A.
I am interpreting this as LL indicating that she suspected some sort of foul play from as early as child A but perhaps it's just me who is interpreting it in this way?

I wonder how common it is for nurses to request that staff save and check the bags after they've been used? Wouldn't that be something a Doctor or Supervisor would do?

 

[Lincoln34]

Your original post said:
I’m just wondering how the tv doc initially came to suspect her really. I know he said it was due to the association with otherwise unexplained events but I doubt he would say, “she is too quiet, weird and shes blonde“. that note of hers also includes the word discrimination. There also seems to be cases that don’t point to her involvement other than being around Like child H. Jmo.

Seems to be implying that you think Dr Jayaram gave a false reason for why he suspected her.

But I think I'll leave it there, as I'm not convinced that even you agree with what you wrote.

I am new to this thread. but I live near Chester and my family and I have always been treated at the Countess of Chester Hospital, When my youngest was sick as a 5 week old baby she needed a initial blood sample taking. The nurses tried - 2 of them - , but could not get easy access to a vein. My baby daughter was very distressed. After 30 minutes Dr Jayram all was called in and he took the sample in what seemed like seconds. My baby had to have other investigations to exclude kidney reflux and all I can say is that throughout the scary process Dr Jayaram was clear , kind and reassuring.

 

[Becci]

Thanks Tortoise!
I wonder why she forwarded that as a suggestion in relation to child A?

Sorry for confusing everyone

 

[esther43]

Agree. The idea that LL was throwing them off scent is one possibility.

 

[esther43]

Sorry for confusing everyone

It's probably me that's getting things confused! Bare with me as I learn to navigate this forum, I have L plates on!

 

[MsBetsy]

I hope I’m not muddling cases.

Well I've definitely done that before but I'm pretty sure the decision was made for Baby E not to conduct a post mortem exam but I don't remember why.

 

[ColourPurple]

I am new to this thread. but I live near Chester and my family and I have always been treated at the Countess of Chester Hospital, When my youngest was sick as a 5 week old baby she needed a initial blood sample taking. The nurses tried - 2 of them - , but could not get easy access to a vein. My baby daughter was very distressed. After 30 minutes Dr Jayram all was called in and he took the sample in what seemed like seconds. My baby had to have other investigations to exclude kidney reflux and all I can say is that throughout the scary process Dr Jayaram was clear , kind and reassuring.

Thanks for sharing your experience (and welcome to the thread ) . I don't really want to bring the whole discussion up again but I thnk since the post I was quoting was made we've also heard how other nurses were questioning LL suitability to looking after sicker babies, and then even LL herself was saying how it always seemed to happen to "her babies", so it seems pretty clear that her presence at the collapses and deaths was the reason concerns were raised by Dr Jayaram.

 

[Tortoise]

Well I've definitely done that before but I'm pretty sure the decision was made for Baby E not to conduct a post mortem exam but I don't remember why.

You're right, it's the case where the consultant turned and apologised to the parents in court for not pressing for a post-mortem. She thought it was NEC

 

[esther43]

You're right, it's the case where the consultant turned and apologised to the parents in court for not pressing for a post-mortem. She thought it was NEC

 

[Becci]

With each case been separate would it not be better doing them 1 at a time as not to confuse the jury ?

 

[esther43]

Yes, isn't this the same case where retrospectively, they could see quite clearly that it couldn't have been NEC because none of the clinical indicators were there.
I am super curious to know how a paediatric consultant could reach the conclusion (at any point) that an infant dying of a life threatening infection such as NEC would have a CRP in normal ranges? Not wishing to digress to moral territory but the simple sentence 'I regret that now' feels a bit inadequate.

 

[esther43]

With each case been separate would it not be better doing them 1 at a time as not to confuse the jury ?

It is interesting the way they have constructed it isn't it? I suppose at least this way we get to hear how the whole year ties together from both perspectives, does get super confusing though!