Letby Case (part 2)

[OneFrenchEgg]

www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/4652340-lucy-letby-court-case?reply=121815754

follow up, remember rules around discussion of active cases

That's from before LL was arrested for the first time - I'd guess that some of the deaths written about in that article are part of the investigation into her and the trial.

Interestingly that article was published during the time period between Baby M and Baby N’s attempted murders.

She has been accused of harming babies since June 2015 and the article states “But the review could not find a reason for the rise in baby deaths from June 2015 to June 2016.”

It was published in 2017

@HelensToenail Yes, I observed that.

I most people are in agreement now that these babies were attacked.

No idea who these most people are.

It’s interesting that the RCPCH report highlights general failures at the unit that are not being admitted at the trial including LL. The defence should have used the findings.

Sounds like a toxic environment, he alleges she was watching the baby struggle for 30 seconds whilst he watched her watch the baby struggle for 30 seconds ? That’s just not right. Especially after his ‘bad feeling’. You’d go in and check not creep about watching and doing essentially the same thing

Very interesting @gmchopeuwatchin

I don’t think he did watch her did he? It’s to do with the machine alarm that can be silenced but resounds after 1min I think.

Which bit of my thoughts do you have an issue with?

I could very easily be wrong. It’s a discussion forum, feel free to pick it to pieces rather than make an ad hom attack.

The fact is that the RCPCH found major failings in the unit irrespective of whether there was a serial killer in their midst. That is relevant to the case.

The tube’s incorrect placement was only discovered and corrected due to transfer to another hospital.

It raises the question of many other mistakes went undetected.

@Fourteenhouses that’s not what happened.

He wasn’t creeping about watching her watching the baby desaturate. He intervened immediately, noticed the tube had been dislodged and started giving rescue breaths (see excerpt of the live trial summary).

Letby said she was waiting to see if the baby would self correct. Dr Jayaram surmised (based on monitor data) that the tube had been dislodged/baby had been desaturating for at least 30 seconds, possibly up to 60 seconds (and that’s only IF the monitor alarm had been paused once!) Letby also agrees that if the event happened as Dr Jayaram stated it did, she would have expected the alarm to have sounded.

Let me be clear I am trying to be as impartial as possible when I say:

To me there are too many variables in this. It's a shame LL claims to have no memory of the event to dispute it. How does anyone, let alone Ravi Jararam know how long LL had been watching this baby. Perhaps she had just gone in. Perhaps the baby had just started desaturating. Sometimes it doesn't take a long time for a baby's Sat's to go from 95/96% to drop to the 80s. Possibly 5 or 6 seconds, possibly more. I don't know what data anyone is talking about? I'm not sure such data exists to say how long a baby has been desaturating for. The only possible data, is from the pulse oximeter , where I believe it may have a record of how many times the alarm was silenced. (I am aware that this data is stored temporarily in the machines for adults but erased after a short time, someone from neonates would have to full in the blanks here) But again in this case as with many there is ZERO evidence of any detail with regards to this. Unless it hasnt been published in the media, we have no such records. It is literally a guess from Ravi Jayaram.

How can he or anyone KNOW she was standing their and watching a desaturation for the entire time she was at the cot side or that the baby was desaturating for that time. We can't. No cctv. It is just a guess. But she also provides no alternative account so what can we go off.

Such a frustrating case.

@gmchopeuwatchin that is correct.

When questioned he said that he didn’t confront her on her behaviour because he was focusing on the situation in front of him.

He didn’t document this suspicious behaviour, as according to him that’s not the sort of thing that gets documented in medical notes.

He says he discussed the incident, but did not formally document it.

There is also no official document about the breathing tube being dislodged, although he did state that it would have been obvious that this is what happened in his medical notes.

I said most people not everyone. Even LL has said the insulin ones were attacked.

They are not relevant to these babies.

I admire your ability to stand firm that these babies were not murdered but everyone involved has been looking into this for years, do you not think they would have included if relevant to these babies??? The best they can come up with is a plumber as the only defence witness when none of the babies died from infections.

Exactly.

Letby has agreed that baby F & L were deliberately poisoned with insulin, she is just denying it was her who administered the insulin. So by all accounts there was someone out to harm these babies on the unit.

The Prosecution state that it had to be one of two nurses, Letby or Belinda Simcock, and Simcock has never been under suspicion. And as far as I am aware, Letby has never directly accused Simcock of being the poisoned either.