UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #2

[annpats]

because repeated attacks on a baby are shocking to me, whoever caused it.

Absolutely unfathomable and the work of pure evil, if it turns out to be true.

MOO.

 

[JosieJo]

The thing I'm still not managing to get my head round is why, if a radiologist said the condition of the child is consistent with an air embolism, was it not immediately acted upon? I mean, it presumably doesn't automatically mean a crime was committed but, rather, that there could be issues with equipment or poor levels of staff skill?

Also, "being consistent" with something doesn't mean it is inconsistent with every other possibility. It may be consistent with lots of things, after all.

It seems impossible to say at the minute I suppose it depends on what is said by the radiologist

 

[JuicyLucy]

How do you know the gestation? I was interested in all the babies gestation as it has such an impact on their potential outcomes but haven't seen them mentioned anywhere.

Lucy Letby: Hereford nurse was "constant malevolent presence", court told

See 4.14pm

 

[Whitehall 1212]

It has only been reported that a handover was discovered at LL's house relating to Child B.

The case of Child A (child B's twin) who died 28 hours earlier had been briefly outlined and their was no mention of any handover being discovered in relation to him.

Only child A and B have been discussed in a little more detail in the opening case for the Crown, so far. We still have children C-Q and the mention of any documents relating to them, found in LL's possession.

 

[Gardenista]

I too am concerned about point 11. Now, from the point of view of reasoning about uncertainty, *if* you have proven someone was a murderer in, say, three cases, and if there are 10 other murders which are similar, and that same person can be shown to be present, then *of course* it is likely that they also were the perpetrator in several of those cases. This is common sense! And it is supported by formal Bayesian probability reasoning (which is also merely common sense). It was the argumentation of the court which convicted Lucia de Berk. The problem is that in these nurse cases, we do not know in advance that there actually was foul play at all. A second problem is that in the famous miscarriages of justice in such cases, circular reasoning is used. The medical evidence to "prove" the first one or two cases is tainted by the statistical information about the other ones. Hence, it is not as secure as it seems. Hence, the proof of the later cases can evaporate if there are any holes in the proof of the first ones.

This makes it essentially simple to explode such cases (if the accused is indeed innocent). Simply prove that the "trigger case" - the only one with firm medical evidence behind it - was not a murder at all. All subsequent accusations now collapse. Moreover, since one has to find out what actually happened in the case of the trigger case, when one looks at it more closely and one uncovers medical cover-up, mistakes, and so on, then the whole chain of implications needs reconsidering.

Who knows how this works out in this case. Maybe she is a horrific murderer. I don't know. I do know that the rate of false convictions in such cases is uncomfortably large. The societal pressure is immense. Police investigators, public prosecutors, bite their teeth into them. The reputation of big ego's is at stake. Top medical specialists are not used to admitting sometimes to be wrong. Nobody in the medical world wants to admit how much uncertainty there is in medical diagnosis. They are self-selected to have big confidence in their own evaluations and to be able to make life and death decisions for other persons on the basis of their training and experience. (You don't want to be operated on by a surgeon who spends every night worrying about whether or not his or her diagnosis was correct);

Your last paragraph perfectly describes the case against Dr. William Husel. Luckily, he had the financial means to hire the very best defense attorneys and was acquitted. If he hadn't been able to do this, there is no doubt in my mind he'd be in prison right now for murdering 25 patients.

 

[Gardenista]

I know it's only day 1, but I get the feeling the defence are going to have to pull out something special to get any result here. All the medical experts seem to agree the deaths were unnatural. It that scenario, I can't see a jury not finding SOMEONE guilty.

Dr. Husel's attorneys only called one medical expert. His attorneys made their case by absolutely destroying the credibility of the state's experts.

 

[gill1109]

Brilliantly explained. Thank you @gill1109.

I have professional experience conducting criminal investigations in the NHS.

I have witnessed first how the culture regarding ownership or error and mistakes is greatly lacking and how poor supervision at all levels creates the environment, which can lead to criminal opportunism.

There is certainly no culture of black box thinking, as with the airline industry!

.. creates the environment, which can lead to criminal opportunism, ... BUT ALSO can lead to inadvertent scapegoating and miscarriages of justice. It's not just in the NHS. The latter (the "but also", ie, miscarriages of justice) has happened in the Netherlands, in Italy, in the US, in Canada. I believe also in the UK.

To give an example from the UK: Collin Norris was a striking nurse, rather over the top gay. This made a lot of folk uncomfortable with him. It make him certainly stand out from the crowd. It is now pretty clear that he certainly did not murder four of the five patients he is supposed to have killed (with insulin injections). Those are much more likely natural deaths. I wonder how the proof that he killed the fifth will stand up when there is no longer proof that he is a serial killer? Apparently, medical specialists agree that patient number 5 did die from an insulin injection. But how was it proven that Norris was the perpetrator? And anyway, what is the margin of error in that medical judgement?

Maybe someone tried to set up Norris. They only needed to tip the scales in one case.

 

[Goldflamingo]

Only child A and B have been discussed in a little more detail in the opening case for the Crown, so far. We still have children C-Q and the mention of any documents relating to them, found in LL's possession.

Yes sorry I should have said so far.

Another poster had wondered if LL had kept notes on all patients and was responding to say how there was no mention of handover notes found for child A but there was for child B.

 

[gill1109]

Correct. Because the investigation could obviously find that no-one else was responsible. If they did, they'd be on trial too.

More precisely: the hospital's own investigation led to a finger of blame being laid on one person. The information uncovered by the hospital was passed on to the police. Did the police do everything they could in order to try to falsify the hospital's hypothesis? You say "the investigation could *obviously* find that no-one else was responsible". How do you know that any one person was responsible?

 

[Bakers]

The thing I'm still not managing to get my head round is why, if a radiologist said the condition of the child is consistent with an air embolism, was it not immediately acted upon? I mean, it presumably doesn't automatically mean a crime was committed but, rather, that there could be issues with equipment or poor levels of staff skill?

Also, "being consistent" with something doesn't mean it is inconsistent with every other possibility. It may be consistent with lots of things, after all.

Could this be one of the crowns radiologist looking at the x rays ?

 

[Bakers]

There was a programme on really t.v last night called the baby killer conspiracy Kathy folding claims she's innocent of killing her 4 children in a case reminiscent of Sally clark .it also mentioned stepping hill hospital very fascinating.you can watch it on catch up TV

 

[arrogantcat]

Interesting to note the mood here so far seems to be leaning more into a presumption of innocence than these threads usually do - partly, I’m sure, because of how little info we have so far, and partly perhaps because of our own natural biases towards such an unlikely killer. It’s a sentiment I share: I really *don’t want* her to be guilty. I don’t want that reality to exist.

All v good points being made, so I don’t say that to undermine anything or anyone. Just an interesting snapshot to take now, before we hear any more.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Could this be one of the crowns radiologist looking at the x rays ?

It could well be but it gives the impression that it was the original radiologist.

If the original radiologist didn't come to those conclusions yet prosecution one has done then that tends to align with what our resident statistician is suggesting as to conclusions being arrived at due to a bias knowing you are being consulted as part of a murder investigation.

 

[Music2022]

Hi I looked at the defence profile posted here, he seems to be very top barrister. Do you get this type of defence for free or would she have had to hire him privately?

 

[annpats]

More precisely: the hospital's own investigation led to a finger of blame being laid on one person. The information uncovered by the hospital was passed on to the police. Did the police do everything they could in order to try to falsify the hospital's hypothesis? You say "the investigation could *obviously* find that no-one else was responsible". How do you know that any one person was responsible?

No-one else is on trial. There has been nearly 3 years of investigations that don't seem to have uncovered any one else. If there wa someone else, they'd be in court too, surely?

 

[merrypason]

More precisely: the hospital's own investigation led to a finger of blame being laid on one person. The information uncovered by the hospital was passed on to the police. Did the police do everything they could in order to try to falsify the hospital's hypothesis? You say "the investigation could *obviously* find that no-one else was responsible". How do you know that any one person was responsible?

I wonder if things like corridor CCTV, or entrance/exit CCTV helped narrow it down. Or key pass access? Neo natal wards are restricted, and I imagine on a night shift there aren't that many people around who shouldn't be. An investigation conducted by an external clinical team with no affiliation or bias towards the hospital concluded 2 of the deaths were murder. I suppose the hospital and police teams would want to review and interview everyone who managed the care of the babies at the time of death and cross reference it again access records and CCTV footage, maybe even ANPR in the parking lot. And maybe the police thought it was difficult to cover up a conspiracy as a whole ward would have to be complicit and maintain their story for 6 years. At the very least she must have been aware of poor conditions/negligence, particularly for her patients who had multiple incidents of critical condition, but never raised the alarm, or told anyone, and still carried on working there? That may be why they didn't find anyone else responsible.

My own opinion

 

[Cherwell]

No-one else is on trial. There has been nearly 3 years of investigations that don't seem to have uncovered any one else. If there wa someone else, they'd be in court too, surely?

I think the question being asked was: how hard did they look for anyone else?

 

[annpats]

Lucy Letby 'tracked families of her alleged baby victims on Facebook'

Lucy Letby, 32, is alleged to have gone on a year-long killing spree while working at the Countess of Chester Hospital - including one who died less than 90 minutes after being handed into her care

www.dailymail.co.uk

She allegedly tracked the babies' families on Facebook.

Oh my. If that's on her laptop or phone data history, then that's not good.

 

[arrogantcat]

The Facebook search info is superficially reminiscent of that awful case of the hospital mortuary rapist from last year, who would look up his victims before attacks.

But it will be vital to know whether she also searched for other families she was involved with who had good outcomes for their babies. It’s entirely possible she would just look up families she had an emotional attachment to, at times. To my knowledge, there’s no rules or laws against that.

I’m interested to hear what they offer as a motive. Why target these particular babies, sometimes repeatedly, while letting - helping, even - countless others live?

 

[annpats]

I think the question being asked was: how hard did they look for anyone else?

I can imagine they searched quite well!

It's not a case fo just 'finding someone' who was in the unit at the same time, because that's circumstantial evidence, and you need more than that for it to hold up in court.
There is obviously forensic evidence that links her, and only her.