UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 8 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 5 hung re attempted #35

[Honeybirdette]

There was also a new witness - neonatologist Shoo Lee, from Toronto, the co-author of a 1989 medical research paper about air embolism in neonatal babies. An air embolism occurs when one or more air bubbles enter a vein or artery, causing a block in circulation. The consequences can be fatal.

Letby was found guilty of injecting air into the bloodstreams of some of the infants, causing air embolism. Prosecution experts had based some of their evidence on Dr Lee’s paper, although he hadn’t been called to give evidence.

Now he was appearing on behalf of the defence.

During the trial, much was made of changes in skin colour observed on some of the babies, which it was suggested were symptomatic of air embolism. The prosecution cited Dr Lee’s paper in support of this, and paediatric consultant Dr Ravi Jayaram told the court a “chill went down (his) spine” in June 2016 when he read the research and believed it fitted with what he’d seen on babies in Chester.

But nobody had checked with Dr Lee. The point he now made, via webcam from 3,500 miles away, was that only one, very specific skin discolouration was diagnostic of air embolism, and none of the babies in the case had displayed this exactly.

For Letby’s defence, it was a basis for appeal. The prosecution disagreed. They argued that all of the instances of skin discoloration in the Letby case were consistent with air embolism, and some of these could be proven using Dr Lee’s own diagnostic method.

They said Dr Lee hadn’t been shown any of the eyewitness testimony from the trial, or any of the babies’ records – and so was not qualified to weigh in now.

Sitting on the uncomfortable wooden benches of court 4, one couldn’t help but wonder why this development hadn’t been aired at the trial. Letby’s lawyers were arguing the science was too weak to support as many as nine of her 14 convictions.

Lucy Letby: Courtroom drama, a failed appeal, and battles over the truth

She was convicted of multiple baby murders, but then fell out of the headlines. Here’s what’s happened since.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Honeybirdette]

Out of the 4 grounds, the one above is the only one that worries me.
The 1989 paper was relied on heavily during the trial and during the prosecutions evidence. Now we have one of the authors of that paper saying this doesn’t prove air embolism?
Can anyone with more knowledge explain why they rejected this?

 

[Marantz4250b]

Out of the 4 grounds, the one above is the only one that worries me.
The 1989 paper was relied on heavily during the trial and during the prosecutions evidence. Now we have one of the authors of that paper saying this doesn’t prove air embolism?
Can anyone with more knowledge explain why they rejected this?

Would the argument be - if this is true, and it's so important, then why didn't you call this guy initially?

 

[Parker Knoll]

Yes !

 

[Kemug]

Maybe her "friendship" with Doc Choc arose because she saw him as someone who was "safe" and who maybe wouldn't actually do the dirty on the wife and kids so she wouldn't actually have to "put out" as our US friends so crudely refer to it?

Actually, I can see this. Also, maybe her pride was involved - see girls, I can also get a guy.

 

[Dotta]

Actually, I can see this. Also, maybe her pride was involved - see girls, I can also get a guy.

They were both "feeding on" each other
(for whatever reasons known only to themselves)

Until he ran away, that is.

JMO

 

[Marantz4250b]

They were both "feeding on" each other
(for whatever reasons known only to themselves)

Until he ran away, that is.

JMO

Yes, I think they both were.

I'm not sure he ran away - maybe after she was arrested, though. They still seemed to be friendly when she was being investigated, I think.

 

[Dotta]

Yes, I think they both were.

I'm not sure he ran away - maybe after she was arrested, though. They still seemed to be friendly when she was being investigated, I think.

Yep.
The arrest ended "Hospital Romance of the Year" hahaha

No surprise here
Handcuffs seem to cool down feelings.

JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

R

Yes !

Really interesting. One of the big things about the defence was the lack of experts aside from the plumber. One was available apparently.

From that info though what's the defence going to do? Get DR Lee to agree with the prosecution when he sees the med notes? More than enough there to assume AE I think.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Handcuffs seem to cool down feelings.

JMO

That depends Dotta.

 

[Jazmania]

Out of the 4 grounds, the one above is the only one that worries me.
The 1989 paper was relied on heavily during the trial and during the prosecutions evidence. Now we have one of the authors of that paper saying this doesn’t prove air embolism?
Can anyone with more knowledge explain why they rejected this?

They said it wasn't enough evidence to justify an appeal. The prosecution experts diagnosed air embolism based on a complete clinical review of the babies. Taking into account the suddenness of their collapse, the lack of infection or diagnosis to explain such a collapse, the ineffectiveness of resuscitation, and the odd complete recovery of some of the babies if they did happen to survive the collapse. If there was an undiagnosed infection or something pre-existing wrong with the babies, then this would not happen. Then there were the odd markings noted by multiple care givers and parents. The markings seen were part of the diagnosis, but not the sole reason.

In the 1989 paper, only 10% of the babies showed odd discolourations, and these varied dramatically. Some of the descriptions did match what was seen in the babies. None of the prosecution experts claimed that seeing any of these marks by themselves could be diagnostic of air embolism. In fact, Dr Shoo has gone further than any of them in claiming that one mark - the red mark on a cyanotic background - could be used to diagnose air embolism. If anything, under cross examination, that would strengthen the prosecution's case.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Remember reading the only test that conclusively proves air embolus is when they actually retrieve the bubble of air in the body itself and then test it to see if its air from outside the body. Thats the scientific proof of AE which I don't think is necessary for a clinical or legal diagnosis of AE, know the symptoms know the problems.

 

[Sweeper2000]

One of the most interesting articles I have read..

Lucy Letby: Courtroom drama, a failed appeal, and battles over the truth

She was convicted of multiple baby murders, but then fell out of the headlines. Here’s what’s happened since.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[katydid23]

Out of the 4 grounds, the one above is the only one that worries me.
The 1989 paper was relied on heavily during the trial and during the prosecutions evidence. Now we have one of the authors of that paper saying this doesn’t prove air embolism?
Can anyone with more knowledge explain why they rejected this?

I read that the prosecution replied that Dr Lee has not seen or read ALL of the medical info set forth by the prosecution so he is not in a position to denounce it's conclusions without doing so.


ETA:

Lucy Letby: Courtroom drama, a failed appeal, and battles over the truth

She was convicted of multiple baby murders, but then fell out of the headlines. Here’s what’s happened since.

www.bbc.com

But nobody had checked with Dr Lee. The point he now made, via webcam from 3,500 miles away, was that only one, very specific skin discolouration was diagnostic of air embolism, and none of the babies in the case had displayed this exactly.

For Letby’s defence, it was a basis for appeal. The prosecution disagreed. They argued that all of the instances of skin discoloration in the Letby case were consistent with air embolism, and some of these could be proven using Dr Lee’s own diagnostic method.

They said Dr Lee hadn’t been shown any of the eyewitness testimony from the trial, or any of the babies’ records – and so was not qualified to weigh in now.

 

[Sweeper2000]

New video by crime scene to court

This is mostly about a potential new victim.

Not sure about anyone else but I hoped that what we had heard about would be the only victims we ever did hear about, the likelihood of that being true is a different question. That's my preference but my honest opinion is that I doubt it. I have thought about the potential that this at the time Younger lady with an almost totally unremarkable background just went into work one day and decided to pump air into a baby and found it ridiculous.

However the totally beige Nature of the killer and her guilt is also ridiculous so is there in anyone else's opinion the potential that she did just start on a kind of extended infanticidal spree or do you think there is potentially at least one other victim? I think I do.

 

[Marantz4250b]

New video by crime scene to court

This is mostly about a potential new victim.

Not sure about anyone else but I hoped that what we had heard about would be the only victims we ever did hear about, the likelihood of that being true is a different question. That's my preference but my honest opinion is that I doubt it. I have thought about the potential that this at the time Younger lady with an almost totally unremarkable background just went into work one day and decided to pump air into a baby and found it ridiculous.

However the totally beige Nature of the killer and her guilt is also ridiculous so is there in anyone else's opinion the potential that she did just start on a kind of extended infanticidal spree or do you think there is potentially at least one other victim? I think I do.

I agree. The way it was presented right at the outset was that she suddenly started killing people in 2015, four years or so after she started nursing. That, imo, is looking increasingly unlikely. Barring some incredibly unlikely event such as a serious illness or accident that substantially changes ones personality and morals, I don't think that people suddenly decide that they are going to start killing infants.

Chances are that she's been doing this for years, or at least maybe having the odd attempt here and there. Personally, I think that late 2014/early 2015 is probably the time she started getting away with it and got more confident.

MOO, obvs.

 

[Dotta]

I think the general chaos in this ward/hospital enabled her.
After all,
if there is no effective monitoring/supervision of employees
things happen.

She noticed nobody was any wiser
so her confidence
(or was it insanity?) grew.

JMO

 

[Marantz4250b]

I think the general chaos in this ward/hospital enabled her.
After all,
if there is no effective monitoring/supervision of employees
things happen.

She noticed nobody was any wiser
so her confidence
(or was it insanity?) grew.

JMO

Unquestionably!

It's worse than a simple lack of management or supervision, though. She was enabled by the actions of the management which at best was apathetic and at worst actively supportive of her being able to do whatever she wanted.

 

[Dotta]

I think she was bored, disillusioned with her work.

So started to experiment to add some "excitement",
like in a TV medical shows.

Being an alleged narcissistic person (IMO)
she craved the dramaturgy/melodrama/
attention /admiration, etc.

If her chosen career had been a librarian/
shop assistant/accountant, etc.
I doubt we would have ever heard about Lucy L. - a serial killer.

But I believe that a good and strict boss/ /superviser/leader brings the best out of employees.

I see it in my school.
It works like a clockwork.
And nobody complains.

People generally hate chaotic work environment.

JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

I agree. The way it was presented right at the outset was that she suddenly started killing people in 2015, four years or so after she started nursing. That, imo, is looking increasingly unlikely. Barring some incredibly unlikely event such as a serious illness or accident that substantially changes ones personality and morals, I don't think that people suddenly decide that they are going to start killing infants.

Chances are that she's been doing this for years, or at least maybe having the odd attempt here and there. Personally, I think that late 2014/early 2015 is probably the time she started getting away with it and got more confident.

MOO, obvs.

Yeh I think your right. I don't think people suddenly develop an almost irresistible urge to murder tiny newborns, something been there for a long time. Cs2c says sumfing interesting in that she only qualified for intravenous access a few days before baby A so before this was the gastric tube. You think she's been pushing the food plunger as a habit? Seems likely to me actually. That's a way of "playing" without the quite fatal results and consequent attention of AE.

Think cs2c mentions that the lethality of method and the method itself changed after the majority of deaths in the charges. Maybe that's because she learned AE is almost always fatal and changed her method as a result? Does that then mean potentially that lucy letby was actually "throwing the dice" with these babies lives? A kind of tossing the coin with life and death rather than heads and tails?