It did seem to me some time back that cover-up was the agenda and Lucy Letby was the scapegoat. I could not have believed it possible except I have a medic friend who was targeted by colleagues even those he thought were friends. He is a really conscientious, caring person and changed job. There are ruthless egos in the NHS.
There has to be hospital data on infection monitoring of the NICU environment. In 2013-14 they had flushed the system - ? the fresh water pipes -with chlorine I believe.
How close were cribs to sinks which are not much better than having an unflushed toilet en situ.
It wasn't just that two of the incubators were literally beside sinks, it was also the fact that one lot of waste water pipes for the ward (35?) above ran diagonally across the Intensive Care Nursery ceiling space - and had leaked and become blocked and cracked so frequently (onto the false ceiling tiles) that they ended up rerouting some of the pipes after these first few deaths (plumber's testimony).
Up until now all we have had from the management is that sepsis wasn't an issue - and the doctors (including Dewi Evans) all denied that infections could be an issue or that any child actually HAD sepsis on the unit at the relevant times. This one newspaper article shows that a child on the unit at the time DID have sepsis... not once, but TWICE
If sepsis was suspected in some babies before they died (as per the medical notes) wouldn’t there be blood test results ruling it out before a murder investigation was started? How could consultants assume murder by a serial killer if they hadn’t ruled out sepsis, the most likely cause of death. Or medical error, the second most likely cause of death? This is the bit that puzzles me. Does anyone know how the consultants in 2015, pretty much immediately after the babies died, came to the serial killer nurse hypothesis? By the way, I think there’s way beyond reasonable doubt with the guilty verdict and I’m equally as puzzled as to how the case got to trial in the first place.
Sepsis was indeed mentioned, why did the defence let it pass, without comment?
11th November 2022;...Jurors were told that Dr Arthurs, professor of radiology at London's Great Ormond Street Hospital, had been instructed to review X-rays taken of the baby, known as Child D, when alive and after death, as well as other babies in the investigation.
“Dr Arthurs said the amount of gas present in Child D's X-rays was consistent with babies that had died of sepsis, complications with a breathing support system, a severe trauma such as a road traffic collision or the direct administration of air into the body”
Dr Arthurs said he had never come across a child dying in such circumstances where there was no such explanation.
And yet there are hundreds of examples in the medical literature of babies with even mild sepsis having air inside and outside the intestines, and even air in the blood vessels leading from the intestines to the liver (and beyond)
We need to wait until an appeal is actually announced. Websites like Sciene on Trial who are calling for donations have no policy in place to audit and ensure those funds go directly to an appeal, and as yet have no confirmation that an appeal is in train. I have been advising anyone who asks me if I will run such an appeal fund to wait until an appeal is announced, and then to deposit funds with the trust account of the instructing solicitor of that appeal so that these funds are receipted, accounted for and auditable by an organisation like the SRA.
The medical records, notes, treatment, autopsies results , circumstances, their nurses & doctors etc of all the babies who died on that unit when Lucy Letby was accused of murdering babies need to be cross compared to determine if there is anything substantially different about the deaths of the babies that Letby is accused of killing.
I can add to the timeline that baby F (whom LL was convicted of trying to poison with insulin on 5th August 2015) had also been suffering from "suspected sepsis".
Not sure how far down the reddit boards you go with this Scott, but it's worth noting that the CoCH was the fifth worst hospital trust for sepsis antibiotic treatment in 2017. (H/T someone who goes by the username nessieintheloch).
One element of this case I find very sinister is why are the 4 consultants involved allowed to go on media platforms around the world and speak freely about this case and yet all the people who worked closely with her on the frontline have been silenced.
Not a single nurse has spoken on any platform? That is sinister.
Thank you again for bringing insight and understanding to all this Scott. Thrown under the bus seems to be an understatement! Poor Lucy and everyone else involved, it's heartbreaking.
Who’s the bright spark who thought it was appropriate to put in a cast iron sewage pipe across a ceiling in a neo natal unit with very sick babies sleeping. I can see it in my mind. Maybe we could call it a death room with fungal spores floating in the air 24/7. Staggering
Appeal . In addition to Science on Trial there is also the Legal practice/charity APPEAL - Appeal were successful in the recent Malkinson case and are UK based. Crowd funding is required as with Science on Trial.
Question 1 - assuming it can be shown that more/all babies were infected with sepsis and that the c-peptide test is defective when associated with sepsis, which seems highly likely, see my post three below, who makes the decision to go to appeal and the choice of either organisation or other route ie an experienced Appeal barrister?
Question 2 I feel that the conviction has been influenced by press coverage, should the sepsis and c-peptide test problems associated with sepsis be promulgated in the press? When?
I think she needs a retrial. Never been so shocked that she was found guilty on no actually evidence.
It is totally insane and evil
Most definitely. The more you read the more suspicious you get
It did seem to me some time back that cover-up was the agenda and Lucy Letby was the scapegoat. I could not have believed it possible except I have a medic friend who was targeted by colleagues even those he thought were friends. He is a really conscientious, caring person and changed job. There are ruthless egos in the NHS.
There has to be hospital data on infection monitoring of the NICU environment. In 2013-14 they had flushed the system - ? the fresh water pipes -with chlorine I believe.
How close were cribs to sinks which are not much better than having an unflushed toilet en situ.
It wasn't just that two of the incubators were literally beside sinks, it was also the fact that one lot of waste water pipes for the ward (35?) above ran diagonally across the Intensive Care Nursery ceiling space - and had leaked and become blocked and cracked so frequently (onto the false ceiling tiles) that they ended up rerouting some of the pipes after these first few deaths (plumber's testimony).
Up until now all we have had from the management is that sepsis wasn't an issue - and the doctors (including Dewi Evans) all denied that infections could be an issue or that any child actually HAD sepsis on the unit at the relevant times. This one newspaper article shows that a child on the unit at the time DID have sepsis... not once, but TWICE
So it's too late to bring this up if there was a new trial?
If sepsis was suspected in some babies before they died (as per the medical notes) wouldn’t there be blood test results ruling it out before a murder investigation was started? How could consultants assume murder by a serial killer if they hadn’t ruled out sepsis, the most likely cause of death. Or medical error, the second most likely cause of death? This is the bit that puzzles me. Does anyone know how the consultants in 2015, pretty much immediately after the babies died, came to the serial killer nurse hypothesis? By the way, I think there’s way beyond reasonable doubt with the guilty verdict and I’m equally as puzzled as to how the case got to trial in the first place.
Too many unanswered questions....
Sepsis was indeed mentioned, why did the defence let it pass, without comment?
11th November 2022;...Jurors were told that Dr Arthurs, professor of radiology at London's Great Ormond Street Hospital, had been instructed to review X-rays taken of the baby, known as Child D, when alive and after death, as well as other babies in the investigation.
“Dr Arthurs said the amount of gas present in Child D's X-rays was consistent with babies that had died of sepsis, complications with a breathing support system, a severe trauma such as a road traffic collision or the direct administration of air into the body”
Dr Arthurs said he had never come across a child dying in such circumstances where there was no such explanation.
And yet there are hundreds of examples in the medical literature of babies with even mild sepsis having air inside and outside the intestines, and even air in the blood vessels leading from the intestines to the liver (and beyond)
Cloud funding for an Appeal?
We need to wait until an appeal is actually announced. Websites like Sciene on Trial who are calling for donations have no policy in place to audit and ensure those funds go directly to an appeal, and as yet have no confirmation that an appeal is in train. I have been advising anyone who asks me if I will run such an appeal fund to wait until an appeal is announced, and then to deposit funds with the trust account of the instructing solicitor of that appeal so that these funds are receipted, accounted for and auditable by an organisation like the SRA.
Looking forward to donating
As recomended by Science on Trial.
The medical records, notes, treatment, autopsies results , circumstances, their nurses & doctors etc of all the babies who died on that unit when Lucy Letby was accused of murdering babies need to be cross compared to determine if there is anything substantially different about the deaths of the babies that Letby is accused of killing.
I can add to the timeline that baby F (whom LL was convicted of trying to poison with insulin on 5th August 2015) had also been suffering from "suspected sepsis".
Not sure how far down the reddit boards you go with this Scott, but it's worth noting that the CoCH was the fifth worst hospital trust for sepsis antibiotic treatment in 2017. (H/T someone who goes by the username nessieintheloch).
https://archive.ph/JlYJS#selection-833.10-1237.26
incompetence/lack of experience is often regurgitated as conspiracy, to deflect from those simple failings.
One element of this case I find very sinister is why are the 4 consultants involved allowed to go on media platforms around the world and speak freely about this case and yet all the people who worked closely with her on the frontline have been silenced.
Not a single nurse has spoken on any platform? That is sinister.
T
Thank you again for bringing insight and understanding to all this Scott. Thrown under the bus seems to be an understatement! Poor Lucy and everyone else involved, it's heartbreaking.
TC
Who’s the bright spark who thought it was appropriate to put in a cast iron sewage pipe across a ceiling in a neo natal unit with very sick babies sleeping. I can see it in my mind. Maybe we could call it a death room with fungal spores floating in the air 24/7. Staggering
Appeal . In addition to Science on Trial there is also the Legal practice/charity APPEAL - Appeal were successful in the recent Malkinson case and are UK based. Crowd funding is required as with Science on Trial.
Question 1 - assuming it can be shown that more/all babies were infected with sepsis and that the c-peptide test is defective when associated with sepsis, which seems highly likely, see my post three below, who makes the decision to go to appeal and the choice of either organisation or other route ie an experienced Appeal barrister?
Question 2 I feel that the conviction has been influenced by press coverage, should the sepsis and c-peptide test problems associated with sepsis be promulgated in the press? When?