UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 7 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 6 hung re attempted #35

[Parker Knoll]

They are in the process of yes.

 

[Jazmania]

I don't know anyone else's thoughts on it but I think a parent may find some relief in an acknowledgement that their child had passed through natural causes rather than malevolent action. I know I would. It would go from "I have Been wronged in a most heinous and evil way" to "my poor baby didn't get to a good start and was too much for them".

Yes, although the prosecution are not saying that Letby caused poor baby K's death. I think it's clear that extreme prematurity caused her death, but that it could possibly have been averted if she had received 'optimal care'.

But one of the main reasons her care was sub optimal was because letby allegedly kept trying to kill her. The reason why there was a delay in giving her fluids and antibiotics was because of her 3.50am collapse ( I think?). That and her subsequent collapses meant it took longer to stabilise her, delaying her transport to the specialist hospital. If letby hadn't kept on dislodging her breathing tube she may have been transferred sooner. But whether that would have made any difference is impossible to say. Now I think around 80% of 25 week gestation babies survive, but that is probably in a specialist NICU. I'm sure the team did everything they could to save her.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Do we know if the families of the murdered/attempted murder babies have sued the hospital Trust?

Lots of Interesting articles on what is that side of this case. Such a noted thing as well with thanks to the good media and good people like cs2c.

This article is detailed. Lots of folks including DR Evans. This is a quote from him. He told the Observer: “They were grossly negligent. I shall write to Cheshire police and ask them, from what I have heard following the end of the trial, that I believe that we should now investigate a number of managerial people in relation to issues of corporate manslaughter."

This one from the article, about the lawyer who is pursuing legal action on behalf of some of the victims. "Tamlin Bolton, a solicitor for law firm Switalskis, which is representing the families of seven of Letby’s victims, told ITV News the next steps toward getting "some kind of closure" for the families."

And again.
"She said the "only mechanism that there really is from a civil perspective is an award of compensation and that's a monetary value to reflect the loss and the harm here but realistically what comes with that process is answers"."

This one from the new chief executive Dr Susan Gilby appointed after LL arrest.

"I do feel that there needs to be an independent, public inquiry, and it needs to be statutory," Dr Gilby told ITV News.

and this quote from the article about the current, emphasis on "current" prime minister.

"Rishi Sunak had originally defended his move to announce a non-statutory inquiry but it now seems likely to probe will soon be put on a statutory footing."

He's waiting to see if the parents want it changed and there is correctly an emphasis on answers for the families.

This is the article.

https://www.itv.com/news/2023-08-22/retrial-corporate-manslaughter-civil-trial-whats-next-in-lucy-letby-case

A bit in that article about the legal push to make attending sentencing mandatory as well. I think for serious and impact full crimes they should definitely have to show. Maybe make a little show out of it or something. Like before they drag em out do a really slow but deep and loud drumroll. Make them feel like the fellowship of the ring in balin's tomb.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Yes, although the prosecution are not saying that Letby caused poor baby K's death. I think it's clear that extreme prematurity caused her death, but that it could possibly have been averted if she had received 'optimal care'.

But one of the main reasons her care was sub optimal was because letby allegedly kept trying to kill her. The reason why there was a delay in giving her fluids and antibiotics was because of her 3.50am collapse ( I think?). That and her subsequent collapses meant it took longer to stabilise her, delaying her transport to the specialist hospital. If letby hadn't kept on dislodging her breathing tube she may have been transferred sooner. But whether that would have made any difference is impossible to say. Now I think around 80% of 25 week gestation babies survive, but that is probably in a specialist NICU. I'm sure the team did everything they could to save her.

Sounds right I think there is in the prosecutions angle fair emphasis on this baby actually being stable and in good condition for a baby so premature as well, so may seem to fit that 80% bracket and maybe it shows just how uncharacteristic it is for a baby with these clinical indicators and conditions to go that way? Assuming standard care.

 

[Jazmania]

Sounds right I think there is in the prosecutions angle fair emphasis on this baby actually being stable and in good condition for a baby so premature as well, so may seem to fit that 80% bracket and maybe it shows just how uncharacteristic it is for a baby with these clinical indicators and conditions to go that way? Assuming standard care.

I don't know, I spoke to a neonatologist in America once about efforts to improve the survival of extremely premature babies. He said that chronic lung disease and infection in babies of this gestation is very common if not expected. And that very frequently babies would not die at birth, but instead would die a few days afterwards. Their lungs at this stage are not designed to breath air, and ventilation machines can damage the lung tissue. Those that survive very often suffer from chronic lung disease for the rest of their lives. So I don't think what happened to baby K (as in her gradual decline in health over hours and eventual death) was sadly uncommon or unexpected. But her dislodging her own tube was very unexpected.

I think the defence are trying to maybe confuse the jury into thinking that their job is to solve the mystery as to why K died. It isn't. Ultimately for this case it's kind of irrelevant whether K died because of poor care or not. There could have been poor care AND Letby tried to kill her. Or there could have been good care AND Letby tried to kill her.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I don't know, I spoke to a neonatologist in America once about efforts to improve the survival of extremely premature babies. He said that chronic lung disease and infection in babies of this gestation is very common if not expected. And that very frequently babies would not die at birth, but instead would die a few days afterwards. Their lungs at this stage are not designed to breath air, and ventilation machines can damage the lung tissue. Those that survive very often suffer from chronic lung disease for the rest of their lives. So I don't think what happened to baby K (as in her gradual decline in health over hours and eventual death) was sadly uncommon or unexpected. But her dislodging her own tube was very unexpected.

I think the defence are trying to maybe confuse the jury into thinking that their job is to solve the mystery as to why K died. It isn't. Ultimately for this case it's kind of irrelevant whether K died because of poor care or not. There could have been poor care AND Letby tried to kill her. Or there could have been good care AND Letby tried to kill her.

Yes I'm getting that as well with the prosecution putting so much emphasis on the sedation preventing movement. It fits with the emphasis on what Dr j said he saw. I,m guessing Mr myers angle is that the sub optimal care may be applied to the breathing tube displacement, just that "it wasn't in the notes" kind of thing. Reasonable doubt? Not sure he is angling at the sub op care caused poor baby k passing.

Again to me it's like he is clutching at straws here same as the first trial. "Massive hospital failings" was actually a reference to some pipes being blocked temporarily. In this case sub optimal care = unnoted tube displacement caused by staff but not LL.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I remember so many folks including myself saying something like this on this forum and generally.

"not the sort of person that kills babies" quote from herself.

Lucy Letby tells court she 'is not the sort of person that kills babies'

The 34-year-old is on trial at Manchester Crown Court accused of the attempted murder of a baby girl, known as Child K. It comes after she was convicted last August of the murders of seven babies.

news.sky.com

Really lucy? It's not the sort of thing that stands when weighed against the evidence. I think I know where this trial is going.

 

[marynnu]

I remember so many folks including myself saying something like this on this forum and generally.

"not the sort of person that kills babies" quote from herself.

Lucy Letby tells court she 'is not the sort of person that kills babies'

The 34-year-old is on trial at Manchester Crown Court accused of the attempted murder of a baby girl, known as Child K. It comes after she was convicted last August of the murders of seven babies.

news.sky.com

Really lucy? It's not the sort of thing that stands when weighed against the evidence. I think I know where this trial is going.

I find that a slightly odd thing to say.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I find that a slightly odd thing to say.

Which bit or her quote? Lol

Assuming it's her quote I know, it sounds like something one of her prison buddies would say to her and she is repeating it. Could be for psychological reinforcement and distancing. "Oh lucy you Don't come across like someone who kills babies" yeah but who does?

 

[Dotta]

Oh lucy you Don't come across like someone who kills babies" yeah but who does?

Well, there was this serial killer who worked as a clown, and he certainly looked creepy and a kind of "the sort..."

Killer Clown's chilling words when asked how many men he actually killed

John Wayne Gacy was sentenced to death for the murder of 33 young men who he tortured, raped and killed in the 1970s and told his lawyers that to him his victims were "not human beings"

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[Anxala]

Lots of Interesting articles on what is that side of this case.

Thanks for that, Sweeper.

The reason I asked about whether or not a compensation process was in place for the bereaved parents was in the context of @Marantz4250b post about the hope that this last stance of Letby's would finally put her and the case to bed so we no longer have to hear or think about her ever again. An idea and a hope which I absolutely agreed with.

But then I thought about those random parents out there who, watching the earlier trial, might also have realised they lost babies in hospitals where LL worked and who were suddenly alerted to the grim fact that their babies might also have been historic victims of her. And who maybe were comforted by the fact that the investigation was far from over, that their babies, lost and otherwise, mattered too.

And how they might feel in the event that this trial may be the end of the investigation line. Particulary parents whose child didn't die but who might have a child who suffered long-term damage as a result of Nurse Lucy. And what compensation, should the investigation continue and eventually arrive at their door, might mean to them.

It's such a very difficult and heartbreaking thing.

 

[Parker Knoll]

As above.
This is so far reaching.
I have sadly heard from professionals involved with the civil case and it’s ongoing.
The damage from this one individual will have repercussions for quite a few years going forwards.
Absolutely HORRENDOUS

 

[Sweeper2000]

Thanks for that, Sweeper.

The reason I asked about whether or not a compensation process was in place for the bereaved parents was in the context of @Marantz4250b post about the hope that this last stance of Letby's would finally put her and the case to bed so we no longer have to hear or think about her ever again. An idea and a hope which I absolutely agreed with.

But then I thought about those random parents out there who, watching the earlier trial, might also have realised they lost babies in hospitals where LL worked and who were suddenly alerted to the grim fact that their babies might also have been historic victims of her. And who maybe were comforted by the fact that the investigation was far from over, that their babies, lost and otherwise, mattered too.

And how they might feel in the event that this trial may be the end of the investigation line. Particulary parents whose child didn't die but who might have a child who suffered long-term damage as a result of Nurse Lucy. And what compensation, should the investigation continue and eventually arrive at their door, might mean to them.

It's such a very difficult and heartbreaking thing.

For REAL.

it might be allot of money but it might go both ways. Might free up their time but then only to ponder the history which might make it worse. I truly hope they go on to have some other children and in them find what they need to lead untroubled lives. money might help with that. I really can't imagine the strain this would put on a person's mind. It's just so wrong.

As above.
This is so far reaching.
I have sadly heard from professionals involved with the civil case and it’s ongoing.
The damage from this one individual will have repercussions for quite a few years going forwards.
Absolutely HORRENDOUS

You think it will be straightforward for them? As in the hospital management being very very clearly out of the bounds of normal and legal practice? Can remember the way the docs suggestions were met with the "no evidence" and think it stands to a point. If I was in their shoes and had to look at what was presented, was it enough to drag her off the floor? Think that bits quite convoluted imoo and I really hope it doesn't conflict with the victims likelihood of apt compensation.