UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #14

Status
Not open for further replies.
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
there Is allot of things I’m still curious about. The most recent insulin case is one. Again seems more bags than one was contaminated but it’s the difference in dextrose that interests me. Again is the assumption that all the bags had insulin in Them?

im also not seeing how air in the ng tube could be lethal. The problems that causes I would have thought were treatable. Splinted diaphragm fixed by positive pressure ventilation and it not being particularly lethal if treated. I’m even interested to know how the resus efforts can differ. Dr evans says it was a very robust thirty min resus effort, how on earth does that thirty mins differ from other cases where there was a death?
 
there Is allot of things I’m still curious about. The most recent insulin case is one. Again seems more bags than one was contaminated but it’s the difference in dextrose that interests me. Again is the assumption that all the bags had insulin in Them?

im also not seeing how air in the ng tube could be lethal. The problems that causes I would have thought were treatable. Splinted diaphragm fixed by positive pressure ventilation and it not being particularly lethal if treated. I’m even interested to know how the resus efforts can differ. Dr evans says it was a very robust thirty min resus effort, how on earth does that thirty mins differ from other cases where there was a death?
Why does the difference in dextrose interest you?
I'm also interested in your knowledge about a splinted diaphragm.
 
Last edited:
there Is allot of things I’m still curious about. The most recent insulin case is one. Again seems more bags than one was contaminated but it’s the difference in dextrose that interests me. Again is the assumption that all the bags had insulin in Them?

im also not seeing how air in the ng tube could be lethal. The problems that causes I would have thought were treatable. Splinted diaphragm fixed by positive pressure ventilation and it not being particularly lethal if treated. I’m even interested to know how the resus efforts can differ. Dr evans says it was a very robust thirty min resus effort, how on earth does that thirty mins differ from other cases where there was a death?

How many of the splinted diaphragm cases died?
 
Why does the difference in dextrose interest you?
It’s a similar question to the first case. Were all of them contaminated? I’m just thinking that if they were poisoned deliberately would that have entailed the poisoner anticipating that different levels of dextrose would be administered at any given point and thus poisoned all of them. And if these bags were in a box, were any others poisoned or used at all. Or was it like the tpn and maintenance bags, presumably disposed of before they were used. preventing anyone knowing if they were poisoned or not.
 
It’s a similar question to the first case. Were all of them contaminated? I’m just thinking that if they were poisoned deliberately would that have entailed the poisoner anticipating that different levels of dextrose would be administered at any given point and thus poisoned all of them. And if these bags were in a box, were any others poisoned or used at all. Or was it like the tpn and maintenance bags, presumably disposed of before they were used. preventing anyone knowing if they were poisoned or not.
They were not TPN. They were bags of 10% glucose, bags 2 & 3 having 50% glucose added to increase the percentage.
 
They were not TPN. They were bags of 10% glucose, bags 2 & 3 having 50% glucose added to increase the percentage.
Do you think they would be stored in the fridge same as tpn or did they have a longer shelf life? I’m just curious to know if other bags had insulin in them or if they were disposed of before any problems could arise
 
However it happened, one person managed to ensure that contaminated bags reached one baby, and it was someone who knew the systems in place on that unit, because otherwise more babies would have been affected.

MOO
 
She hasn't detected what seems obvious to an observer, and thinks he's being odd, and talks about her own thoughts about him only. The other nurse isn't referring to his text, she's referring to what she already noticed. I think it's a good example of LL not perceiving others, just like when he bought her chocolate and she said it was a shame she doesn't usually eat chocolate, and the very similar accounts of her not being able to place herself in the shoes of the parents and shocking them with her inconsideration.

JMO
Smoke and mirrors!!

JMO
 
Latest episode, baby N


The Trial of Lucy Letby, Episode 22: Baby N, “Lucy Letby said to my parter, ‘I hope he’s alright,’ and gave her a hug.”​




In this episode Caroline and Liz examine what the prosecution say happened to Baby N, a premature baby boy admitted to the Countess of Chester Hospital with the blood-clotting condition haemophilia.
 
That’s my line of thinking really. If we knew all bags had been contaminated it to me suggests they were just sitting around waiting to be used at any point. If only the bags that have it in it reach the babies that suggests something.

so we can infer that only bags containing insulin reaches any babies and none else. That suggests to me that insulin is put in bags in A specific way rather than say all bags in one box being injected and then presumably the problem being traced. I suppose this is true of both insulin cases except the tpn bags are much more likely to reach only specific babies if injected with insulin. I think someone mentioned the tpn is replenished every week. tpn is likely to be stored in a specific way as well. The dextrose stored at room temperature can just sit around in a box and is generic.

I think the way the evidence presents in the first case is with the question of two tpn bags or one

the second case i think involves more ambiguity. There were at least three bags alleged to have been contaminated all reaching one baby. These are generic dextrose. Is it possible that the box comes in multiples of three? So whatever the number there is three to a row or layer. That way if you were to poison three bags you could just poison the top layer of three and have a reasonable bet they all reach one?

You would also have the potential to remove these bags if you had access to the stock and knew the ones with insulin in.

by the sounds of it the dextrose bags are just stocked until used and presumably a standard stock number in the box or storage unit. Say about ten maybe twenty To a box?
 
there Is allot of things I’m still curious about. The most recent insulin case is one. Again seems more bags than one was contaminated but it’s the difference in dextrose that interests me. Again is the assumption that all the bags had insulin in Them?

im also not seeing how air in the ng tube could be lethal. The problems that causes I would have thought were treatable. Splinted diaphragm fixed by positive pressure ventilation and it not being particularly lethal if treated. I’m even interested to know how the resus efforts can differ. Dr evans says it was a very robust thirty min resus effort, how on earth does that thirty mins differ from other cases where there was a death?

In my opinon:

Anything that causes increased intra-abdominal pressure could cause a collapse if the pressure is high enough. This is because the abdominal contents will displace the space needed for the lungs to expand. This idea is not in question; it is basic physiology. The lungs need room to expand while you breathe. If the increased intrabdominal pressure is not resolved then even positive pressure ventilation may not be able to overcome the resistance and permit a resuscitation. Typically babies have increased intra-abdominal pressure due to illness or after surgery. They are already critically ill and sometimes on a ventilator to begin with. Usually there is little that can be done about the intra-abdominal pressure in those cases - sometimes they have to surgically open the belly or open it back up and sometimes that helps and sometimes it does not.

The reason why Dr. Evans has hypothesized that air in the NG tube contributed to, for instance, Baby I's first 3 collapses, is because there was evidence of excessive air in the stomach, *and* the baby was able to be resuscitated. On the other hand, babies who are suffering from the illness or surgical complications I described earlier... they aren't suddenly "fine" once the resuscitation is over. They're still very ill. Evans suggests that Baby I eventually died of an air embolism during her fourth collapse, when they were unable to resuscitate her.

As for your second bolded question, can you explain more what you are wondering here?


 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
249
Guests online
1,267
Total visitors
1,516

Forum statistics

Threads
587,435
Messages
17,882,570
Members
227,104
Latest member
Bubbles_2400
Back
Top