Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Lucy letby

108 replies

Nettleteaser101 · 17/12/2024 05:56

How much longer are the poor parents of those babys going to be put through hell over and over again.
Wasnt she found guilty twice?.
I really feel for the familys.
They have had to put up with the hospitals cover ups and now new evidence and the Expert isnt sure now.
Why wasnt this all sorted before now.
Whos paying for the experts and solicitors on Lucy Letbys side.
If she didnt murder those babys who or what did?

OP posts:
Daygloboo · 18/07/2025 11:25

MessyNeate · 18/12/2024 07:42

I guess when you're in the same field you can see it differently.

Neonatal medicine/practice is so very different from any other. I'm unsure why they only had paediatric medical expert witnesses rather than neonatal consultants for a start.

As a neonatal nurse myself. Some of the things she did. Would cause harm to babies and is not normal practice. So I can see why she was found guilty, I can see the disparity when discussing this case with my other nurse friends who aren't in the neonatal field of practice. It is a very different speciality, and I've been a neonatal nurse a lot longer than she was but I still wouldn't be calling myself over qualified or an expert.

The poor parents just need to be left to grieve.

You say some of the things she did were not normal.practice and would cause harm. Do you think that she was incompetent as opposed to an actual.killer. Do you think that that is the explanation for it all ?

coffeeandteav · 18/07/2025 11:51

For me it is nothing to do with the notes why I feel the jury are correct. It is a big jigsaw of evidence all pointing one way. For example this blood sugar reading. 2.6 is considered normal.

table, created by Professor Hindmarsh, records all of Child F's blood sugar readings from 11.32pm on August 4 to 9.17pm on August 5.

They are: 5.5 (August 4, 11.32pm)
0.8 (August 5, 1.54am)
2.3 (2.55am)
1.9 (4.02am)
2.9 (5am)*
1.7 (8.09am)
1.3 (10am)
1.4 (11.46am)
2.4 (noon)
1.9 (2pm)
1.9 (4pm)
1.9 (6pm)
2.5 (7pm)
4.1 (9.17pm)

Guess who took the 5am reading? Funny that.

ading of 'above 2.6' is considered 'normal'.

Professor Hindmarsh says the hypoglycaemia is "persistent" right through the day until the conclusion of the TPN bag at 6.55pm.

*The 5am reading of 2.9, which the court hears is considered a 'normal' blood sugar reading, is gone into further detail. Mr Johnson asks the court to show the intensive care chart for Child F for August 5. For the 5am reading, the blood sugar reading signature has the initials 'LL'.

The chart also shows Professor Hindmarsh's notes to provide context for the blood sugar readings throughout the day, when changes are made to the infusions for Child F. Professor Hindmarsh says the hypoglycaemia continues "despite" five boluses of 10% dextrose and "ongoing" glucose delivery from the 10% dextrose infusion, and the glucose contained within the TPN bag. He says that would, in total, give a glucose infusion which would be, at minimum, "twice the normal [daily] requirements of a baby". He said it is likely more glucose was being delivered from the bolus injections.

Professor Hindmarsh had noted three events during August 5, after 1.54am, when the TPN bag was administered.

At 10am, there were problems with the cannula infusion which meant the line had to be resited, and fluids were discontinued. The two further glucose readings after are '1.4' and '2.4', "implying" that the blood glucose level had started to rise "spontaneously" as there was "no contribution from the intravenous route".

Etc etc if anyone fancies reading the court transcript

Oftenaddled · 18/07/2025 12:18

coffeeandteav · 18/07/2025 11:51

For me it is nothing to do with the notes why I feel the jury are correct. It is a big jigsaw of evidence all pointing one way. For example this blood sugar reading. 2.6 is considered normal.

table, created by Professor Hindmarsh, records all of Child F's blood sugar readings from 11.32pm on August 4 to 9.17pm on August 5.

They are: 5.5 (August 4, 11.32pm)
0.8 (August 5, 1.54am)
2.3 (2.55am)
1.9 (4.02am)
2.9 (5am)*
1.7 (8.09am)
1.3 (10am)
1.4 (11.46am)
2.4 (noon)
1.9 (2pm)
1.9 (4pm)
1.9 (6pm)
2.5 (7pm)
4.1 (9.17pm)

Guess who took the 5am reading? Funny that.

ading of 'above 2.6' is considered 'normal'.

Professor Hindmarsh says the hypoglycaemia is "persistent" right through the day until the conclusion of the TPN bag at 6.55pm.

*The 5am reading of 2.9, which the court hears is considered a 'normal' blood sugar reading, is gone into further detail. Mr Johnson asks the court to show the intensive care chart for Child F for August 5. For the 5am reading, the blood sugar reading signature has the initials 'LL'.

The chart also shows Professor Hindmarsh's notes to provide context for the blood sugar readings throughout the day, when changes are made to the infusions for Child F. Professor Hindmarsh says the hypoglycaemia continues "despite" five boluses of 10% dextrose and "ongoing" glucose delivery from the 10% dextrose infusion, and the glucose contained within the TPN bag. He says that would, in total, give a glucose infusion which would be, at minimum, "twice the normal [daily] requirements of a baby". He said it is likely more glucose was being delivered from the bolus injections.

Professor Hindmarsh had noted three events during August 5, after 1.54am, when the TPN bag was administered.

At 10am, there were problems with the cannula infusion which meant the line had to be resited, and fluids were discontinued. The two further glucose readings after are '1.4' and '2.4', "implying" that the blood glucose level had started to rise "spontaneously" as there was "no contribution from the intravenous route".

Etc etc if anyone fancies reading the court transcript

Yes, the child's blood sugar was oscillating, partly because they were being treated with single doses of glucose and their IV bag wasn't functioning.

If another nurse had taken the readings, would they be guilty of poisoning the child?

All covered in the international expert witness analysis

coffeeandteav · 18/07/2025 16:29

Oftenaddled · 18/07/2025 12:18

Yes, the child's blood sugar was oscillating, partly because they were being treated with single doses of glucose and their IV bag wasn't functioning.

If another nurse had taken the readings, would they be guilty of poisoning the child?

All covered in the international expert witness analysis

Oh Gosh! Am not going there will leave it for the CRC.
Colin Campbells was refused so time will tell.

Oftenaddled · 18/07/2025 16:50

That's fair enough.

Link to the expert summary reports for anyone interested. They use numbers where the court used letters but in the same order, so baby A is 1, baby E is 5, baby Q is 17 etc.

https://ripe-tomato.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/international-expert-panel-summary-report-all-cases-nos-letters-3.pdf

https://ripe-tomato.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/international-expert-panel-summary-report-all-cases-nos-letters-3.pdf

Daygloboo · 18/07/2025 20:21

coffeeandteav · 18/07/2025 16:29

Oh Gosh! Am not going there will leave it for the CRC.
Colin Campbells was refused so time will tell.

Who is colin campbell

Daygloboo · 18/07/2025 20:37

Vivi0 · 18/07/2025 20:25

Another nurse who was found guilty of murdering patients.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c23gnk3jm44o.amp

Oh ok

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread