Lucy Letby - Specifically those who think she is guilty…

[BEAchDays2]

I’ve just been reading massive amounts of posts of Facebook following the new doc out about LL. (Blame a long train journey!) and it got me thinking, those who still think she is guilty what are your reasons?

It does feel like the tide has turned generally. I haven’t watched the new doc yet, likewise has anyone seen it, and is it worth it?

Many medics have commented, working from the facts in the public domain or from the clinical records, that it was inaccurate to describe the children as well and stable. Certainly it is hard to see how the children who died could be described this way

@DistantEarlyWarning along with everything else...I remember the police didn't give very much away before the trial and one of the things was deaths stopped whilst she was on holiday and started up again when she came back. At which point I did still think she could be innocent...so it's clearly not all down to stats. Now I know she's guilty and have a bigger picture I can see the stats confirm it. I'm sure there are plenty of statisticians out there that think the same.

It's still not the same as literally listing potential heart attack symptoms and then acting like it'd be a surprise when someone has a heart attack and people would jump to murder instead...that's not at all what happened in this case.

And we've been through this before-Letby herself described the sicker babies as pulling through whilst others died unexpectedly. And Dr Brearey saying the stronger twin collapsed first, which made no sense from a clinical perspective. The weaker triplet survived etc. even if you said the 3rd survived because he was moved, it still doesn't make any sense why the other two would collapse and he didn't. They were all three being cared for at the COCH during that time period. The only thing that makes sense is Letby hadn't gotten round to attacking him yet. As horrifying as that is.

Your theory on how stable the babies were (or weren't) just doesn't pan out for the above reasons.

This is a fallacy - there were many more weeks during which no deaths occurred than those where Letby was off.

And you are making a statistical argument, once again.

You cannot possibly still think that a significant reduction in deaths after Letby was moved off is unrelated to the downgrading of the unit. It is a fact that it took (and still takes) much lower acuity babies than almost all the indictment babies.

And yet it did make sense from a clinical perspective. From the evidence in the public domain the babies were sick (obviously - they were in a NNU, and would not have been in that NNU after the downgrade), and were mis-managed e.g. treatment delays.

You haven’t given any reasons, just a paragraph of incoherent rubbish. We know enough now from the court transcripts and published Thirwall documents to see with our own eyes that the prosecution narrative of well and stable babies was exactly that. Many far more senior and qualified medical practitioners have seen the full medical notes as well and agree that the clinical picture of these babies was vastly different to what was presented in court.

Specifically for Firefly

very interesting video - but we know FF won't watch it

And you are making a statistical argument, once again.

I'm not though I'm just repeating what the police had released before the trial started. I'm not arguing those stats made her guilty I'm saying I thought she was innocent then. Until everything else came out.

You cannot possibly still think that a significant reduction in deaths after Letby was moved off is unrelated to the downgrading of the unit. It is a fact that it took (and still takes) much lower acuity babies than almost all the indictment babies.

No I haven't said that.

Even if they were sick there were others sicker who didn't collapse and die. So no it doesn't make sense. But continue to believe that these very experienced doctors just suddenly forgot how to care for babies during a one year period right after Letby completed training to work with higher needs babies.

These premature babies were incredibly strong. Letby tried multiple times to kill some of them and could only do it with an air embolism or physical trauma. They were not sick, they were not expected to die, they just needed a bit of help. Get it through your heads.

How about you get it through your head that sometimes even apparently healthy adults drop dead for no apparent reason, never mind those with underlying conditions not expected to kill them.

These babies were not "incredibly strong". Baby O was around 4 pounds in weight at birth so by definition by being born as a triplet at around 33 weeks, was vulnerable, having missed about 7 weeks of optimal in utero development. You sound utterly deluded claiming otherwise.

Death is not always predictable, nor do hospital stays guarantee a favourable outcome, someimes despite Herculean medical efforts. And that point is rather debatable in the case of the indictment babies.

@MistressoftheDarkSideWe're not talking about fully grown adults. You would still need a post mortem if a grown adult dropped dead unexpectedly at home and hadn't seen a doctor recently anyway. I think obvious suicides even need a post mortem. Murder is not an impossibility even if in your world all nurses are lovely kind people who would never hurt anyone. There will always be a reason and in the absence of anything natural then it's unnatural isn't it, that's just logic.

These babies were not "incredibly strong". Baby O was around 4 pounds in weight at birth so by definition by being born as a triplet at around 33 weeks, was vulnerable, having missed about 7 weeks of optimal in utero development. You sound utterly deluded claiming otherwise.

And how big was baby G at birth? Baby G (Lucy Letby trial): Weighed 535 grams (approx. 1.18 lbs) at birth, born prematurely at 23+6 weeks gestation.

4 pounds is fine for a healthy triplet-

4 pounds (approx. 1.8 kg) is a very normal and common average birth weight for a triplet

Triplets are almost always born prematurely (often between 32 and 35 weeks) because of limited uterine space. Weighing 4 pounds usually indicates a solid growth milestone for a multiple birth at that stage

"Feeders and Growers": At 4 pounds, most triplets are strong enough that their primary medical need is simply gaining weight, feeding well, and letting their lungs and systems mature.

No, a 4-pound triplet would absolutely not be expected to die.
In modern medicine, a baby born at 4 pounds (approx. 1.8 kg) has an excellent prognosis, with a survival rate of 95% or higher.
While a 4-pound baby is technically classified as having a "low birth weight", this is entirely standard for a triplet. It is a reflection of sharing space in the womb and usually arriving a few weeks early, rather than a sign of a life-threatening illness

They would just collapse one day after the other wouldn't they the minute one nurse is back 🙄practically down to the hour. This all happened totally naturally and coincidentally. Yes I'm the deluded one...

These babies were not strong sadly - the fact they were in the nicu should tell you that.

Their care was abysmal - if you read up to date information you would see that. The video today said one of the triplets waited 5 hours for life saving treatment when they should have not waited at all (collapsed lung) Another baby - mum lost her waters 60 hours before being induced and wasn't started on antibiotics and then the baby wasn't started on antibiotics either! The maternity and nicu were failing

Fair enough thinking LL was guilty due to the trial but, seriously - look at what has come since, the video above answers a fair bit about embolisms and covers a couple of the babies health stories.

Watch from 40:53 - they are talking about one of the triplets - needed cpap, collapsed lung, needed ventilation, delayed treatment 5 hours, and sadly passed away. Echocardiogram performed and no air in the heart - no air embolism. Information from Thirwell report (page 190 apparently)

@fosterma so every parent who has a baby in the NICU should just expect them to die at any moment then? How many people on mumsnet do you think have healthy children who were once premature in a NICU?

Many - but yes, if a child is in nicu there is a very high chance they could die - it is intensive care, not special care. The infants will be very small, or had a difficult pregancy or birth, congenital abnormalies. You go minute by minute at times - a steady baby can arrest at 3 days old out of the blue and need high intensive care and then arrest again at 5 days - out of the blue - in between each event they appeared well and moving in the right direction (my child btw). The treatment they give can cause difficulties but it's a fine line between making things better or making things worse. I know a child that the parents had to make the decision on a treatment that would cause brain damage but would let the child live (severely disabled). Ventilation can cause ROP (blindness) a baby can get infections out of the blue (especially on a filthy unit) These babies are all fragile and not strong at all- they move to special care units once no longer needing high intensity care.

I find your tone pretty awful, you are dismissive of what these children went through - 'so strong' - it's offensive

@fosterma I find the assertion that they were all at deaths door more offensive. It's like telling any parent of a NICU baby "don't get your hopes up"-which incidentally is what LL said to a parent (of a completely healthy child now btw)

I think withstanding multiple attacks by Letby (or if you believe she's innocent multiple collapses then) sounds pretty strong? She could only kill them with air embolism or physical trauma which would kill most adults. A lot of these babies survived. Baby G survived despite being born the most premature by far.

You'd really rather I called them weak, sick, likely to die, "not fully formed babies" to quote Mark Mcdonald just because it affirms your belief they weren't murdered? Even though you're completely wrong?

I’d prefer you stop with the emotive language - these infants were poorly - they wouldn’t be in intensive care if they were fighting fit and yes, you are prepared for the worst as the majority of children in the nicu don’t have an easy and straightforward journey

Did you watch any of the video? Any of the parts where they discussed air embolism? How it is detected? How it would be administered (20-40 mls of air - it’s not a small amount) and how collapse and death would be very, very quick as the heart would stop as soon as the air reaches the heart. How echocardiogram would diagnose air in the heart and at least 2 babies had echocardiogram and no air was detected. There was no air embolism

The NICU setup was failing, there is a lot that would support that point of view. But several of the families affected had babies that were moved to those wards for treatment from another hospital, and some were sometimes moved between those 2 hospitals more than once. In the Thirlwall statements, one family gives quite a detailed picture of how the care differed (for them) between the 2 locations and eventually asked/insisted that their baby was not moved back to the Countess of Chester Hospital because they felt that deterioration happened fast when they were transferred back there. Some of the parents only learned of serious incidents concerning their babies a year or even later on, when the police had been called to investigate, and even as late as through the court proceedings in some cases - not from the hospital team before that.

One baby that was the subject of the investigations had been born at hospital 2 prematurely, but was transferred at 100 days old to the Countess of Chester, where follow on care/unusual interference then appears to have happened. The baby was small, but in physical terms, over 3 months old in fact, and considered to be stable with the expectation of only a very short stay when she/he was moved into the C. of C.

A poster upthread wrote that the unusual sudden deaths (but with similar characteristics that senior staff were confused by) stopped when Lucy Letby was on holiday. She was also taken off night shifts by managers for a period of months after several of the deaths and serious incidents, when it was believed that it would be hard on her mental state as she had been repeatedly closely connected to these events. The night shift hours also returned to a much more normal record that aligned with previous statistics and regularity of (health) arrests, as well.

It is interesting so far-explains exactly why these babies weren't able to be resuscitated as would usually happen doesn't it? Air embolism made it almost impossible to resuscitate them. They've certainly not been able to rule out AE so far.

But if we are to believe the prosecution case, several babies (B, M, D, at least) were resuscitated after collapse following venous air embolism. I think you have misunderstood the video.

Four pounds is a good birth weight for a triplets, but that doesn't mean a triplet sharing a placenta with the other two isn't vulnerable. Most children with a 95% chance of surviving will survive, but the risk that they won't is obviously quite significant.

I've not misunderstood it it just doesn't confirm what people think it does. It's always been said these babies were unusually hard to resuscitate and needed lots of shots of adrenaline. It would depend on how much air she used-the video even says the first lot of air didn't make the child collapse.

The discussion is about fatal venous air embolism. The point is that if you have an airlock in the right ventricle of the heart, you can't displace it with CPR. Not that it's very hard, but that it's impossible.

In other cases the doctors are arguing that the resuscitation (along with other inconsistent signs) demonstrates that venous air embolism didn't cause the collapses to start with.

Having been on a jury also (not for murder) I completely agree with you!! I was also shocked and really concerned at some of the fellow jurors, instead of looking at hard facts and evidence about certain things , a few 'strong character' types seemed to just say something biased based on previous elements of the trial and everyone else jusy went along with it. The system needs reviewing and agree cases like this should not be just random people off the street who dont understand complex evidence, mental health issues, medical evidence etc