Last edited by a moderator:
UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #12
- Thread starter sleuth777
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- May 9, 2009
- Messages
- 38,827
- Reaction score
- 115,334
ADMIN NOTE:
This is a trial thread to discuss the trial only. It is not a general discussion thread.
Although WS is based in the USA, we do try to manage the various discussions according to laws of other countries.
As this trial is in the UK, the case is under sub judice so please stick to discussing the trial content without posting anything that violates the following principles:
Basically anything that may prejudice the accused’s right to a fair trial
Any suggestion, opinion, or direct accusation that the accused is either guilty OR innocent
(i.e. the accused cannot be called "the killer"; use "the accused", "the alleged killer", or "the defendant")
A defendant’s previous history of any offences is off limits
Scandalizing the court (disparaging judges, lawyers, any officer of the Court) is off limits
Broadcasting anything about proceedings which happen in the jury's absence is off limits
Any non compliance with an Order of the court is off limits
Note in the event of an Appeal subsequent to verdict:
Appeals are usually heard by senior judges who are not likely to be influenced by the media, therefore responsible comment is usually considered acceptable once a trial has concluded, regardless of if there is going to be an appeal.
Reference: UK Contempt of Court Act 1981
This is a trial thread to discuss the trial only. It is not a general discussion thread.
Although WS is based in the USA, we do try to manage the various discussions according to laws of other countries.
As this trial is in the UK, the case is under sub judice so please stick to discussing the trial content without posting anything that violates the following principles:
Basically anything that may prejudice the accused’s right to a fair trial
Any suggestion, opinion, or direct accusation that the accused is either guilty OR innocent
(i.e. the accused cannot be called "the killer"; use "the accused", "the alleged killer", or "the defendant")
A defendant’s previous history of any offences is off limits
Scandalizing the court (disparaging judges, lawyers, any officer of the Court) is off limits
Broadcasting anything about proceedings which happen in the jury's absence is off limits
Any non compliance with an Order of the court is off limits
Note in the event of an Appeal subsequent to verdict:
Appeals are usually heard by senior judges who are not likely to be influenced by the media, therefore responsible comment is usually considered acceptable once a trial has concluded, regardless of if there is going to be an appeal.
Reference: UK Contempt of Court Act 1981
- Joined
- May 9, 2009
- Messages
- 38,827
- Reaction score
- 115,334
ADMIN NOTE:
This thread is specifically dedicated to discussion of the trial for the accused Lucy Letby. Please discuss this trial without bringing other cases into the discussion. All that does is introduce support for speculation regarding guilt or innocence which is sub judice.
This thread is specifically dedicated to discussion of the trial for the accused Lucy Letby. Please discuss this trial without bringing other cases into the discussion. All that does is introduce support for speculation regarding guilt or innocence which is sub judice.
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2010
- Messages
- 4,003
- Reaction score
- 12,007
MOD NOTE:
From the Verification Process page:
If you would like to add yourself as an expert in a certain field or as an insider to a case, please send an email to wsverify@yahoo.com Please note this is a new email address.
If you do not wish to be identified as an expert in a certain area, we ask that you refrain from answering questions that are specifically directed to those that have been verified as specialist in their area and that you do not claim to be a professional in any area.
If a member posts with "expertise" please check to make sure they are on this list. If not, please do not take their post as professional information, but rather just as another opinion; much as you would with any member of the general posting membership.
Click here for the list of verified professionals and verified insiders.
Please cease the bickering about statistics and statisticians. We have no verified statisticians posting on this thread, no statisticians who have testified in court and whose testimony you can discuss. You may have a conversation in PMs if you wish, but don't bring it to the thread. Up to 20 can participate, and such a thread can't be seen or moderated by moderators or administration.
From the Verification Process page:
If you would like to add yourself as an expert in a certain field or as an insider to a case, please send an email to wsverify@yahoo.com Please note this is a new email address.
If you do not wish to be identified as an expert in a certain area, we ask that you refrain from answering questions that are specifically directed to those that have been verified as specialist in their area and that you do not claim to be a professional in any area.
If a member posts with "expertise" please check to make sure they are on this list. If not, please do not take their post as professional information, but rather just as another opinion; much as you would with any member of the general posting membership.
Click here for the list of verified professionals and verified insiders.
Please cease the bickering about statistics and statisticians. We have no verified statisticians posting on this thread, no statisticians who have testified in court and whose testimony you can discuss. You may have a conversation in PMs if you wish, but don't bring it to the thread. Up to 20 can participate, and such a thread can't be seen or moderated by moderators or administration.
- Joined
- May 9, 2009
- Messages
- 38,827
- Reaction score
- 115,334
ADMIN NOTE:
Please remember that any post expressing an opinion of either guilt or innocence is in violation of sub judice rules.
Posts that violate sub judice get removed, along with all responses to them.
Please remember that any post expressing an opinion of either guilt or innocence is in violation of sub judice rules.
Posts that violate sub judice get removed, along with all responses to them.
- Joined
- May 9, 2009
- Messages
- 38,827
- Reaction score
- 115,334
Hey everyone,
This is a reminder that ANY expressed opinion related to the guilt or innocence of the accused is sub judice. Please read Post #2 of the Opening Posts in this discussion.
As we don't have the staff to sit in this thread 24/7 to read posts in real time, please use the Report feature to alert Moderators to any post that you feel is sub judice and it will be reviewed and removed if necessary.
Also, this thread is to discuss the trial, not statistics or other cases.
Thank you.
This is a reminder that ANY expressed opinion related to the guilt or innocence of the accused is sub judice. Please read Post #2 of the Opening Posts in this discussion.
As we don't have the staff to sit in this thread 24/7 to read posts in real time, please use the Report feature to alert Moderators to any post that you feel is sub judice and it will be reviewed and removed if necessary.
Also, this thread is to discuss the trial, not statistics or other cases.
Thank you.
Tortoise
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2015
- Messages
- 26,232
- Reaction score
- 131,937
https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue
I'm at Manchester Crown Court again this morning for the murder trial of nurse Lucy Lebty. We're continuing to hear evidence in relation to the near fatal collapse of a baby, referred to as Child M, in April 2016.
First in the witness box is Dr Emma Lewis, who is a consultant clinical biochemist at the Countess of Chester. Dr Lewis is explaining to the court the process by which bloods are tested at the hospital
We're now being shown a blood test record for Child L (Child M's twin brother, who crashed around the same time as him on April 9). The Crown say Ms Letby poisoned Child L with insulin.
Peter Hindmarsh, professor of paediatric endocrinology at University College London, is now in the witness box
The medical expert was approached and asked to review blood charts for Child L. He last appeared in court in November last year, where gave expert evidence on another baby in this case, Child F
In relation to Child F, he said that poisoning (with insulin) was the only reasonable explanation for the premature-born twin boy’s sudden deterioration
I'm at Manchester Crown Court again this morning for the murder trial of nurse Lucy Lebty. We're continuing to hear evidence in relation to the near fatal collapse of a baby, referred to as Child M, in April 2016.
First in the witness box is Dr Emma Lewis, who is a consultant clinical biochemist at the Countess of Chester. Dr Lewis is explaining to the court the process by which bloods are tested at the hospital
We're now being shown a blood test record for Child L (Child M's twin brother, who crashed around the same time as him on April 9). The Crown say Ms Letby poisoned Child L with insulin.
Peter Hindmarsh, professor of paediatric endocrinology at University College London, is now in the witness box
The medical expert was approached and asked to review blood charts for Child L. He last appeared in court in November last year, where gave expert evidence on another baby in this case, Child F
In relation to Child F, he said that poisoning (with insulin) was the only reasonable explanation for the premature-born twin boy’s sudden deterioration
Tortoise
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2015
- Messages
- 26,232
- Reaction score
- 131,937
https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue
Prof Hindmarsh has just spoke at length about various blood readings and calculations...Prosecutor Nick Johnson KC says, as he concludes, 'that's probably quite hard for the jury to follow' - the judge says 'me too'. Similar feelings in press gallery
Mr Johnson is now taking Prof Hindmarsh back over his analysis
Prof Hindmarsh has just spoke at length about various blood readings and calculations...Prosecutor Nick Johnson KC says, as he concludes, 'that's probably quite hard for the jury to follow' - the judge says 'me too'. Similar feelings in press gallery
Mr Johnson is now taking Prof Hindmarsh back over his analysis
Tortoise
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2015
- Messages
- 26,232
- Reaction score
- 131,937
More of the expert witness testimony for child M yesterday -
"Today Dr Dewi Evans, a paediatric consultant called as a medical expert by the prosecution, said he believed Baby M had been deliberately injected with air.
He explained that if air had been injected at the same time as fluid was being fed to be the baby via an intravenous tube it could have gone directly into his circulation.
But some air could also have been introduced into the 'dead space' between the tap in the IV tube and the cannula taking medication into the baby's system.
[...]
Dr Sandie Bohin, a second paediatric expert brought in by the prosecution, told Nick Johnson KC, prosecuting, that she believed Baby M had been injected with air out of 'malevolent intent'.
She suggested this had been done by three possible mechanisms, involving either a needle or syringe or just a syringe.
The air could have been put into the IV tube and then 'pushed' through into the infant's body by the fluids that followed. Theoretically this could have been at a rate of no more than 0.8 mls per minute – 'a very slow infusion'.
If air had been injected into his body at a fast rate it could have caused an airlock and an immediate cardiac arrest and death. A slower introduction would have taken the air 'some minutes' to reach his heart and cause a collapse rather than sudden death."
Injected air led to baby's collapse, trial of nurse Lucy Letby hears
"Today Dr Dewi Evans, a paediatric consultant called as a medical expert by the prosecution, said he believed Baby M had been deliberately injected with air.
He explained that if air had been injected at the same time as fluid was being fed to be the baby via an intravenous tube it could have gone directly into his circulation.
But some air could also have been introduced into the 'dead space' between the tap in the IV tube and the cannula taking medication into the baby's system.
[...]
Dr Sandie Bohin, a second paediatric expert brought in by the prosecution, told Nick Johnson KC, prosecuting, that she believed Baby M had been injected with air out of 'malevolent intent'.
She suggested this had been done by three possible mechanisms, involving either a needle or syringe or just a syringe.
The air could have been put into the IV tube and then 'pushed' through into the infant's body by the fluids that followed. Theoretically this could have been at a rate of no more than 0.8 mls per minute – 'a very slow infusion'.
If air had been injected into his body at a fast rate it could have caused an airlock and an immediate cardiac arrest and death. A slower introduction would have taken the air 'some minutes' to reach his heart and cause a collapse rather than sudden death."
Injected air led to baby's collapse, trial of nurse Lucy Letby hears
GoodDayToYouSir
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2023
- Messages
- 351
- Reaction score
- 2,191
I was thinking about what an absolute mountain the jury has to climb in this case when it gets to deliberations.
I am a prolific notetaker, so if I were on the jury, I would be furiously scribbling everything down. But it occurs to me that the jury hears the evidence, takes notes, and then when court is finished for the day, they have to hand their notebooks and iPads back in. They don’t get to take them home and re-read what they have heard. Yes, they get their notebooks and iPads back when they go to court the next day, but I imagine they don’t get much time before they are back in the courts and having to take down new evidence, so there is a little time for them to re-read the previous days evidence.
I think about everyone on here, and how we are all clearly rereading the evidence multiple times to try to understand it, and are coming up with questions and areas where we aren’t sure what the point of the question is, but someone else on here is able to explain it.
The jury doesn’t have the benefit of any of that. They can’t go home and reread the evidence. They can obviously think about it, but given the huge amount of scientific information, I’m sure that many details won’t be remembered, unless they look at their notes or the documents. They can’t discuss the evidence with anyone, not even with each other until they get to deliberations. They must have so many questions whirling around in their heads.
And when they finally get to deliberate, over six months worth of questions and opinions will be unleashed by 12 people .
I don’t envy them. It is going to be such a difficult exercise for them to go over so much information.
I am a prolific notetaker, so if I were on the jury, I would be furiously scribbling everything down. But it occurs to me that the jury hears the evidence, takes notes, and then when court is finished for the day, they have to hand their notebooks and iPads back in. They don’t get to take them home and re-read what they have heard. Yes, they get their notebooks and iPads back when they go to court the next day, but I imagine they don’t get much time before they are back in the courts and having to take down new evidence, so there is a little time for them to re-read the previous days evidence.
I think about everyone on here, and how we are all clearly rereading the evidence multiple times to try to understand it, and are coming up with questions and areas where we aren’t sure what the point of the question is, but someone else on here is able to explain it.
The jury doesn’t have the benefit of any of that. They can’t go home and reread the evidence. They can obviously think about it, but given the huge amount of scientific information, I’m sure that many details won’t be remembered, unless they look at their notes or the documents. They can’t discuss the evidence with anyone, not even with each other until they get to deliberations. They must have so many questions whirling around in their heads.
And when they finally get to deliberate, over six months worth of questions and opinions will be unleashed by 12 people .
I don’t envy them. It is going to be such a difficult exercise for them to go over so much information.
Tortoise
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2015
- Messages
- 26,232
- Reaction score
- 131,937
https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue
[my note reporter should be stating child L not child M in all of these tweets]
Prof Hindmarsh has told the court that in his opinion the blood glucose readings (and absence of other causes) point to insulin being administered to Child M.
Explaining how this could be done, he says 'so my feeling is that the likely mode of delivery of insulin was through an intravenous infusion by the addition of exogenous insulin to the infusion bag system'
He says to yield the blood results that Child M had, at least three bags would have had to have been contaminated - this could have been done by injecting insulin into the portal at the bottom of the bag while it was being/or after it had been made up
[my note reporter should be stating child L not child M in all of these tweets]
Prof Hindmarsh has told the court that in his opinion the blood glucose readings (and absence of other causes) point to insulin being administered to Child M.
Explaining how this could be done, he says 'so my feeling is that the likely mode of delivery of insulin was through an intravenous infusion by the addition of exogenous insulin to the infusion bag system'
He says to yield the blood results that Child M had, at least three bags would have had to have been contaminated - this could have been done by injecting insulin into the portal at the bottom of the bag while it was being/or after it had been made up
GoodDayToYouSir
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2023
- Messages
- 351
- Reaction score
- 2,191
At least three bags had to be contaminated? How does that stack up against when LL was on duty and when the bags would have been changed?
sapphireminds
Verified Neonatal Nurse Practitioner
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2023
- Messages
- 83
- Reaction score
- 202
Here's a quick search of case reports for neonatal air emboli
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
www.hindawi.com
https://adc.bmj.com/content/archdischild/64/4_Spec_No/507.full.pdf (this is the article that the doctor is referring to about the bright vessels on top of pallor)
www.longdom.org
One half (lower/upper) of the body with marked line between them would also be highly suspicious of air embolism
Fatal Systemic Air Embolism in a Neonate after Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Venous Air Embolism Leading to Cardiac Arrest in an Infant with Cyanotic Congenital Heart Disease
Gas emboli, including venous and arterial, are a rare but important complication of pediatric cardiac surgery. They have the potential to have devastating consequences and require prompt recognition and treatment. We present a case of gas embolism occurring in the immediate postoperative period...
https://adc.bmj.com/content/archdischild/64/4_Spec_No/507.full.pdf (this is the article that the doctor is referring to about the bright vessels on top of pallor)
Longdom Publishing SL | Open Access Journals
Longdom Publishing SL is one of the leading international open access journals publishers, covering clinical, medical, and technology-oriented subjects
www.longdom.org
One half (lower/upper) of the body with marked line between them would also be highly suspicious of air embolism
Sweeper2000
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2022
- Messages
- 1,931
- Reaction score
- 4,854
I think the implication is that the insulin would have had to have mixed into all three. So gone from one to the next. But not sure
sapphireminds
Verified Neonatal Nurse Practitioner
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2023
- Messages
- 83
- Reaction score
- 202
Were all three bags different concentrations of dextrose? That's more difficult to achieve, especially not without having another baby get poisoned as well.
Sweeper2000
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2022
- Messages
- 1,931
- Reaction score
- 4,854
I’m wondering guys about the possibility that it could be malpractice at work or In practice here. We have heard that ae can be associated with inserting equipment etc but doing it improperly. I still don’t really understand the equipment here for instance don’t see how the air bypasses the monitor but before the pump. I have found this though so thought it might be worth considering. im saying this because I still find her lack of awareness about the way people may be looking at her as really noticeable.
www.gov.uk
<modsnip>
Needle-free intravenous connectors - incompatibility and risk of infection
(All manufacturers) some pre-filled glass syringes are incompatible with some needle-free connectors; and when adaptor stays attached after use there is a possible risk of infection and or air embolus to patients. (MDA/2011/068)
Last edited by a moderator:
Sweeper2000
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2022
- Messages
- 1,931
- Reaction score
- 4,854
I don’t think it’s three bags of dextrose. More likely three bags each containing different liquids. One bag has the insulin and then mixed by the infusion system. Just guessing really :/
Sweeper2000
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2022
- Messages
- 1,931
- Reaction score
- 4,854
Tbh I’m not really one to know exactly how this works. But here’s the link to child l information .
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, February 15
The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…
Sweeper2000
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2022
- Messages
- 1,931
- Reaction score
- 4,854
“We're back after a short break. Ms Letby's defence lawyer Ben Myers KC is now questioning Prof Hindmarsh”
- Status