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

Thanks @Goldpaw

I wonder why two jury members are away, I hope they are not struggling with it all.

I think probably covid/winter bug.

Unless the reporting is particularly poor, child H seems like an odd one to include. Doesn't seem like there is much to indicate baby was anything other than just plain poorly.

It's such a long drawn out trial, and that it involves such tiny babies and accusations of such a hideous nature I hope the Jury members are exempt from future Jury selection.

Yes I hope so too, it's very disruptive over such a long period as well as mentally and emotionally taxing I imagine.

I haven't read about baby H what was wrong there?

I agree it's incredibly confusing. I was a neonatal nurse for many years & saw numerous babies with chest drains, but making sense of this was quite a challenge.
I think it boils down to the nature of 2 or 3 profound collapses which were rather odd because there was no obvious reason, such as the re-accumulation of air in the chest cavity which is fairly common and easily treatable. In addition, while the baby's oxygen level and heart rate dropped profoundly he was still being ventilated adequately as air was going into the lungs.

Just catching up on yesterday - it does seem odd to bring charges for child H. I feel like child H was perhaps included mostly because they were looking for unusual events (or, perhaps unconsciously, unusual events when Letby was on shift?).

www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23274333.lucy-letby-trial-baby-received-suboptimal-care-cou

Wish we could get some proper legal analysis.

Any midwives around, or @NNUJan would you know? Child I's mother seems to have had poor care during pregnancy/labour. I thought when waters broke the usual advice was to get baby delivered soonish? Also she said she was too scared to push and only did so when advised baby was distressed "at some point". Right before that it appears a midwife failed to recognise she was having contractions.

Does that not sound like a series of failings in care?

I've not caught up on the last few hours so can't comment on the NNU period or Letby.

The risk of waters breaking is largely infection I think and advice will probably depend on gestation.

Looking at the account from the consultant at Liverpool women’s it does look like baby I was fine when initially transferred to CoC at 11 days, has unexpected collapses at CoC which resulted in them transferring her back to Liverpool women’s where they couldn’t really find a problem.

I have no opinion on Lucy Letby and don't want to comment on that, but from what I've read it seems CoC provided incredibly poor care overall and that must surely really muddy the waters as regards anything else.

I’m not sure the poor care of the mother during labour in baby I’s case was relevant to the out come though. it may not muddy the waters as much as you’d expect.

@NNUJan is sudden and unexpected collapse in prem NICU babies? Obviously they are very sick and fragile and they do have occasional set backs but the sense I get from the live reporting is that many of the babies are sick within normal expectations for NICU babies until they suddenly aren’t. There doesn’t seem to be any identified underlying conditions that would explain it or say an overwhelming infection where there was a gradual deterioration.

I'm not a midwife, so hard to comment on antenatal care. The baby appears to have been in decent condition for a 27 weeker though, is all I can say.

Just checking, did you mean to put something like "common" in your first sentence? Sudden minor episodes are not uncommon, and with a baby of 27 weeks' gestation not totally unexpected. By which I mean not breathing, quite common as the brain is immature and they just "forget" - it's hard work too! ( They can be given caffeine to stimulate breathing, you might be interested to know). You virtually always have a reason for this. Also, collapse to the point of needing cardiac massage is not common at all, as the overwhelming majority of problems are respiratory, so once you sort that out all is well.
One more thing! The gestation is extremely important. Not just at birth, but the equivalent as they get older. So a healthy baby born at 27 weeks who is now 6 weeks old is looked at as a 33 weeker, who should be beginning to feed normally etc.

Yes it should of said common. I re typed it and missed it out.

That’s kind of what I was thinking. I know Bradys and desats are fairly common, it’s the resus that is sounding as though it’s unusual.

baby I does sound as though when she started having problems she was at a similar stage as my niece was in when she was born at 32/33 weeks.

I wish in the Standard's live reporting they'd pop the date, and if relevant time or baby, they're referring to at the start of the post. Would make it a lot easier.

Dropped out of this for a while but wanting to catch up - anyone still reading along to the press court info?

There’s a pod cast on the daily Mail site. Google it. They release it on a Monday.

I'm still following. It's tough going with no medical knowledge.

I have no knowledge or experience of babies who need to be cared for in incubators so not sure what is ‘normal’ re medical emergencies etc … listening to the LL podcast and it sounds like a huge number of ‘incidents’ but hard to know how unusual this is?

I can't get my head around a lit of the medical speak...I wonder how the jury are managing. Do they have recourse to ask for certain aspects to be explained better, later on?

At least the media frenzy with the disgusting bias seems to have calmed down a bit.

*lot

Having been present at a trial involving medical terminology the jury will have a 'medicine for dummies' pack with an explanation of the procedure and a basic outlining of why it's not normal to react like that. It's a big pack! They can also ask an expert or the judge to explain things again

Thanks @WimbourneWasps !

A pack? Wow, yes as you say it would be some pretty big pack judging by how much medical terminology and description of medical procedures and conditions there are in this trial.

I haven’t followed this case for a while, surely it should be wrapping up soon?

Have the Prosecution mentioned what they think LL’s motive was if they believe she intended to cause harm/kill? Do they have to establish a motive in a UK court?

I’ve also read a few articles where her Defence have basically said they believe some of the babies’ deaths/injuries were caused intentionally but deny it was LL who did it. Have they blamed any other specific individuals? And again, do they have to find proof or create theories to point the finger of suspicion at others or is their job simply to provide proof that LL didn’t do it?

No, they haven't (yet) mentioned a motive, but maybe they will in the summing up. They also don't need to give a motive for her to be found guilty, they just have to prove she did it.

I think it has overrun, so will last longer than the original 6 months that it was allotted.