UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #18

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Were all 30 cases ones involving LL? And did any of the cases he decided were not suspicious have elements of collapses and involvement from LL. Why and how were those 30 specific cases chosen?

This is in no way a defence of LL. Im just trying to get a broader picture of what this chart is actually showing and if it is as clear cut as it potentially seems
I don’t think we know that information. The hospital/trust had already carried out its own internal review before the police became involved (which is when Evans became involved) so it’s possible that all 30 something incidents concerned LL.
 
IMO Public opinion in Chester, where I live, is very mixed. I think people find it hard to believe that babies may have been killed deliberately and it’s so close to home .

The consensus seems to be - ‘Can’t believe it but either way her life is ruined now. They better have got it right’

Edited to add IMO

Oh they better have gotten it right. As much as I don't want LL to be guilty of what she's charged with, if she is guilty, then the prosecution better have crossed every last 't' and dotted every last 'i' so we can all at the end of this trial, regardless of our positions, feel and agree 100% that justice has been conclusively served. Because the thought that an innocent person has been put through such a grotesque living nightmare just doesn't bear thinking about.

I want more than anything else a no ambiguity end to this trial.

Thanks for that, Lincoln34. I can imagine how shocking and hard to process it must feel on a local level.
 
Last edited:
Oh they better have gotten it right. As much as I don't want LL to be guilty of what she's charged with, if she is guilty, then the prosecution better have crossed every last 't' and dotted every last 'i' so we can all at the end of this trial feel and agree that justice has been conclusively served. Because the thought that an innocent person has been put through such a grotesque living nightmare just doesn't bear thinking about.

Thanks for that, Lincoln34. I can imagine how shocking and hard to process it must feel on a local level.
It’s trite to say but it is , and has been, the ‘talk of the town’. I’ve had folks ask what I think - and tell me what they think - at work, in the gym (!) and in shops. One of my colleagues was particularly impacted as their child - full term at birth - was on the Unit at the time.

I was told that the police searches even included the gutters, but have no source for that other than that the person who told me lives a street away from one of the search locations.
 
Obviously LL is present/involved at all the cases listed. If she wasn't, then it wouldn't be part of this trial.

The key part is if these are the ones Dr Evans or the other experts picked out and they match 100% with the list then that is pretty damning.

Do we know if there there were other cases they discounted and in those discounted cases did they do the same level of Investigation to see if there were similar findings of air in the bowel or similar findings on x-ray etc. Did they discount other collapses as not suspicious just because LL wasn't there.

If only those cases were genuinely picked 100% blind and there were no other suspicious/unexplained collapses at all, I'm not sure I understand why it's taken such a long trial and why they would have needed to arrest her twice without charge and take so long to bring to trial
My understanding is that Dr Evans was asked to look at 33 cases plus 2 insulin ones. I believe these cases (although I don't know if this is 100% confirmed) probably represent all the deaths and serious collapses that took place that year. He then looked through all the medical notes, autopsy results, scans and all available evidence to try to come up with a medical explanation for the deaths or collapses. Those collapses and deaths for which there was a medical explanation were discounted, and we are left with 17 that are considered not medically explicable. We know LL was there for all of these 17 medically inexplicable incidents, but we don't know if she was present for any of the others.
 
He investigated 33 cases (incidents) not including the two insulin cases.

Dr Evans said in 14 of the 17 cases he had completed his preliminary reports by November 2017, and was unaware of any medical staff member being a suspect.
He became aware of the name 'Lucy Letby' for the first time upon her arrest in July 2018 when he read her name in the press.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, October 25

Dotta's right, you do know everything.
 
Obviously LL is present/involved at all the cases listed. If she wasn't, then it wouldn't be part of this trial.

The key part is if these are the ones Dr Evans or the other experts picked out and they match 100% with the list then that is pretty damning.

Do we know if there there were other cases they discounted and in those discounted cases did they do the same level of Investigation to see if there were similar findings of air in the bowel or similar findings on x-ray etc. Did they discount other collapses as not suspicious just because LL wasn't there.

If only those cases were genuinely picked 100% blind and there were no other suspicious/unexplained collapses at all, I'm not sure I understand why it's taken such a long trial and why they would have needed to arrest her twice without charge and take so long to bring to trial
I think they need to make that clear to the jury, if they haven't already, that these are the only unexplained deaths. They might have clarified that with them already, with Dr Breary and other's testimonies.

As to the last question, about why it is taking so long---this case has a lot of moving parts. 22 charges of murder/attempted murder? That is a heavy load of data and interviews by LE with an entire neonatal unit staff and all of the victim's families and the hired investigators and medical experts and then they had to do their investigations and reports, and do their deep dives.

I think they have put on a very well organised, well crafted case so far, given the overwhelming amount of info they had to try and spoon feed to non-medical group of people to understand and sort out.

The trial took a long time to come because the defense also needed their fair amount of time to sift through the discovery and get their case ready.

It is not enough just to say she was ,allegedly, there for every event, therefore let's get this trial going and be done with it. But I do think that when they figured out that it was true that she was the one common denominator in every collapse, that kept the investigation going . JMO
 
IMO Public opinion in Chester, where I live, is very mixed. I think people find it hard to believe that babies may have been killed deliberately and it’s so close to home .

The consensus seems to be - ‘Can’t believe it but either way her life is ruined now. They better have got it right’

Edited to add IMO
That is so relatable! Nobody wants to believe such evil is possible. Human error is always preferable, even if it leads to the same outcome. And yes, the accused's life is ruined, one way or the other.
 
I completely agree with you. I can find no evidence that proves that any more than 10 babies died on CoC neonatal unit 2015-2016, only 10??
 
I don't know, Katy, but I think after 3 arrests, 30 police interviews over 3yrs, plus 3 yrs on remand = 6 years of having nothing to focus on other than what she's been accused of, and now this trial, I'd probably be pretty numb and drained and devoid of feeling for anyone other than myself too.

I think you'd have to be detatched to retain and hold on to some semblance of sanity.

I don't think her alleged detatchment is significant in an innocent or guilty sense, just a basic survival sense.
That is true and is one valid way of looking at it. But I would add that she was up close and personal when all of these devastating deaths and injuries were happening. Many of these babies died under her care and she battled to save them only to watch them die.

So it seems weird to me that she can seem so unemotional when hearing about their traumatic collapses and deaths but then pictures of her bedroom or the voice of a colleague makes her fall apart. IT makes to seem like she is only sad about her situation and has disconnected from the victims painful situations.

I do understand, as you say, that she may have had to detach as a basic survival tool. But if so, it is only an emotional detachment from the babies and victims and not from her emotional issues. If that makes sense...
 
But were they any other 'unexplained collapses' accompanied by the sudden appearance/disappearance of skin blotches, x-rays that revealed evidence of 'surplus air' in the body, etc.? I am guessing 'no'.
Good question. If there had been, Meyers would have brought those cases up already on cross, most likely.
 
I honest can't see why the management would be called for this trial...its LLs trial not the hospital..and there is nothing they can add really.
I agree that certainly some management should face investigation..and possibly have internally. But separately I think
I was thinking more along the lines of the discussions that were had as we have heard from others. Dr J is an example where he has given evidence as has dr choc. We could consider if they may have their own investigations too but they still have given evidence in the trial. Nurse CB also gave evidence earlier in the trial reporting the team were upset (I can’t remember which baby now!) as was LL and said she was crying as were others at the time. I feel management are part of the discussion(s) at least.

Consultants have aired their views that it was discussed with management and we hear what *they* said and allegedly when, but it would be good to hear managements side of things regarding these conversations as a whole picture sort of thing.

Unless, that has already happened on some of the days reporting was not allowed etc and we aren’t privvy to that information.
JMO
 
I wonder if the Judge will advise the Jury to treat each death/collapse individually or the case as a whole?
Or maybe both?
 
I wonder if the Judge will advise the Jury to treat each death/collapse individually or the case as a whole?
Or maybe both?

At the start of the trial, when talking about babies A and B the prosecution said:

""We say that there is no plausible alternative to an air injection [air embolus]. The fact that it happened in 2 cases just over 24 hours apart shows that these were no accidents.

"Lucy Letby was the only person present [with Child A] at the time he collapsed...and was in the room when the same happened to [Child B].

We also say that you are entitled to look at the evidence of what happened to [Child A and B] in the context of one, what Lucy Letby did to other children and two, most starkly, her having poisoned [two other children] with insulin.
"



As the judge didn't jump up and correct the prosecution, I'm assuming that it's correct

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
75
Guests online
3,136
Total visitors
3,211

Forum statistics

Threads
602,664
Messages
18,144,736
Members
231,476
Latest member
ceciliaesquivel2000@yahoo
Back
Top