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

[DianaWW]

It is, but it is also the reason people are coming out of the wooodwork- the posts on here when you read through them (and I have watched and waited for days before posting) all imply this is about changing the verdict and no one should be giving this information space on the news- but that just isn’t true, it does need questioning for so many reasons.

I don’t think that’s true, and I don’t think anyone thinks the hospital was perfect. The issue people have is that many people are using hospital failings as a way to imply that LL is innocent, when that doesn’t even begin to explain how these deaths occurred. The trial was to ascertain whether or not LL murdered those babies and the inquiry will highlight the hospital failings that allowed her to do what she did.

The guardian article is another one that has cherry picked evidence, and quoted experts that haven’t viewed the medical evidence.

A well rounded, unbiased article would also have included Baby E’s Mums testimony (that was backed up by phone records), the liver injury, the falsifying of notes, the fraudulent datix, the weird note addressed to 3 dead triplets, the huge amounts of contradictions and downright lies in her testimony…and much more. None of these articles are willing to include anything that points to her guilt though. Why? JMO.

 

[Sweeper2000]

It is, but it is also the reason people are coming out of the wooodwork- the posts on here when you read through them (and I have watched and waited for days before posting) all imply this is about changing the verdict and no one should be giving this information space on the news- but that just isn’t true, it does need questioning for so many reasons.

I agree with you although to my knowledge and I think logically speaking it would be not very likely that failings at the hospital have been covered up. All of what we have heard in terms of relevant evidence has been checked and double checked and has followed a path of escalating investigation by ever increasingly senior medical staff and police. From hospital management to the governing body of nursing and police. I think it would be very difficult for anything to slip under that which is a very revealing radar. Although I am firmly convinced in many cases of her guilt I would like to see if there is anything that could have been done differently.

 

[DianaWW]

I agree with you although to my knowledge and I think logically speaking it would be not very likely that failings at the hospital have been covered up. All of what we have heard in terms of relevant evidence has been checked and double checked and has followed a path of escalating investigation by ever increasingly senior medical staff and police. From hospital management to the governing body of nursing and police. I think it would be very difficult for anything to slip under that which is a very revealing radar. Although I am firmly convinced in many cases of her guilt I would like to see if there is anything that could have been done differently.

There are definitely things that could, and should, have been done differently and I hope that the inquiry will cover these.

 

[Ruthbullock]

I don’t think that’s true, and I don’t think anyone thinks the hospital was perfect. The issue people have is that many people are using hospital failings as a way to imply that LL is innocent, when that doesn’t even begin to explain how these deaths occurred. The trial was to ascertain whether or not LL murdered those babies and the inquiry will highlight the hospital failings that allowed her to do what she did.

The guardian article is another one that has cherry picked evidence, and quoted experts that haven’t viewed the medical evidence.

A well rounded, unbiased article would also have included Baby E’s Mums testimony (that was backed up by phone records), the liver injury, the falsifying of notes, the fraudulent datix, the weird note addressed to 3 dead triplets…and much more. None of these articles are willing to include anything that points to her guilt though. Why? JMO.

All odd, all point to accountability and potential murder, the articles don’t need to include anything that points to her guilt- she has been found guilty, is in prison and will not be given a retrial at this point in time- but were other people/departments/processes also guilty- quite possibly. So why are people getting upset that the articles are biased to highlighting other failures- surely that’s the most important matter at this time?

 

[DianaWW]

All odd, all point to accountability and potential murder, the articles don’t need to include anything that points to her guilt- she has been found guilty, is in prison and will not be given a retrial at this point in time- but were other people/departments/processes also guilty- quite possibly. So why are people getting upset that the articles are biased to highlighting other failures- surely that’s the most important matter at this time?

Because the articles aren’t highlighting other failures, and saying that others should be held to account, they are trying to suggest that her conviction is not safe. Look at the headline

Lucy Letby: killer or coincidence? Why some experts question the evidence​

Do you not think that is suggesting there was a problem with the evidence presented at her trial?

As I said, I do think others have questions to answer, and that is exactly what will happen at the inquiry. Her trial was not the place for that. I will leave it there as I feel like I’m repeating myself now. JMO.

 

[ColourPurple]

…every failing that occurred on that unit whilst LL was working there has been attributed to just one person.

If you’d followed the trial you would know that this simply isn’t true. The defence argued that sub-optimal care was the cause of the deaths and collapses and there were some examples where it was agreed that care had been sub-optimal, including Baby H where the jury found LL not guilty on one charge of attempted murder and didn’t reach a verdict on the other. Nobody has said that there were no failings at COCH or that LL was responsible for them all.

…but all those people who are suggesting the statistics and the deaths need to be further looked into (many scbu nurses themselves) are not necessarily doing it to clear LL, but in the hope that additional failings that potentially occurred during that period aren’t swept under the carpet

I’m sure there may be some that fall into the category now but the small group of people who have been pushing this from the start are convinced that LL is innocent, and that belief is what has fuelled their campaign. Many of the claims and so called facts that are being repeated now by those new to the case ( sometimes word for word) can be traced directly back to those people.

 

[Dotta]

IMO
The greatest failing of COCH was that a demented Babies' Murderer was roaming free in its wards not disturbed by anybody for a loooong time.

And guess what?
This murderer became a FACE of this Hospital,
smiling benevolently from a Poster advertising this Institution

Honestly,
This tops all.

JMO

 

[ColourPurple]

Even just within the trial there were doctors, who are more qualified, walked in thought something was strange and then walked away- that doesn’t sit right with me. Why were they suspicious and not monitoring more, gathering more evidence- asserting their authority. These weren’t niave teenagers who went to HR with a gripe and should have done nothing more, they were more trained assertive adults.
The paediatrician said that around the time of Child A's inquest he and a group of clinicians highlighted to hospital bosses the "association we had seen with an individual being present in those situations and, how do I say diplomatically, being told we really should not really be saying such things and not to make a fuss".
ETA: child A they had suspicions

Lucy Letby trial hears how doctor raised concerns but was told 'not to make a fuss'

Dr Ravi Jayaram, a paediatrician at the Countess of Chester Hospital, also said the unusual skin discolouration of Letby's first alleged victim, a baby boy known as Child A, "didn't fit with anything I had ever seen".

news.sky.com

The consultants raised the issues many times and had to fight for management to do anything about their concerns. They also asked that CCTV be installed if she was going to be allowed to stay on the ward. Instead they were accused of bullying LL and forced to apologise. Management wanted to get her back on the ward. The inquiry will look into this .

 

[Ruthbullock]

Because the articles aren’t highlighting other failures, and saying that others should be held to account, they are trying to suggest that her conviction is not safe. Look at the headline

Lucy Letby: killer or coincidence? Why some experts question the evidence​

Do you not think that is suggesting there was a problem with the evidence presented at her trial?

As I said, I do think others have questions to answer, and that is exactly what will happen at the inquiry. Her trial was not the place for that. I will leave it there as I feel like I’m repeating myself now. JMO.

All evidence presented at trial is open to question, many court cases are decided on less than satisfactory evidence- but they are decided. Some people are even found not guilty, or worse found guilty and later found innocent. Is this not a place for discussion? JMO- I think LL did lead to the death of several babies, but I also think there were other staff on duty who turned a blind eye and potentially could have intervened and chose not to, alongside policies and a laisez faire attitude, the higher up the chain, the more difficult it is to get help. Perhaps she was genuinely inept at her job, colleagues suspected it- in fact from before child A , do they have no culpability, no responsibility as her supervisors to monitor what is happening, to supervise her work? To me that is the second question- the first being where were all other staff during every incident, the alarms would be sounding at the desk, even if not in the rooms, and I have yet to witness other staff not wandering in and watching. The second is if you are on duty and you suspect something nefarious- then it’s your job to keep an eye out and oversee what’s happening. I do question if LL hadn’t been charged- where would this investigation have gone, how many people would have been found culpable and I do agree with people suggesting others should also be held accountable and the data skimming is a factor in that- they haven’t included any of the deaths when LL wasn’t on duty- I understand the logic in a court trial- it’s designed to convict a person, but all the information needs to be shared for the hearing.

 

[DianaWW]

All evidence presented at trial is open to question, many court cases are decided on less than satisfactory evidence- but they are decided. Some people are even found not guilty, or worse found guilty and later found innocent. Is this not a place for discussion? JMO- I think LL did lead to the death of several babies, but I also think there were other staff on duty who turned a blind eye and potentially could have intervened and chose not to, alongside policies and a laisez faire attitude, the higher up the chain, the more difficult it is to get help. Perhaps she was genuinely inept at her job, colleagues suspected it- in fact from before child A , do they have no culpability, no responsibility as her supervisors to monitor what is happening, to supervise her work? To me that is the second question- the first being where were all other staff during every incident, the alarms would be sounding at the desk, even if not in the rooms, and I have yet to witness other staff not wandering in and watching. The second is if you are on duty and you suspect something nefarious- then it’s your job to keep an eye out and oversee what’s happening. I do question if LL hadn’t been charged- where would this investigation have gone, how many people would have been found culpable and I do agree with people suggesting others should also be held accountable and the data skimming is a factor in that- they haven’t included any of the deaths when LL wasn’t on duty- I understand the logic in a court trial- it’s designed to convict a person, but all the information needs to be shared for the hearing.

Her trial was determine if she was guilty or not. Not whether or not anybody else was. Just her. Again, everything else will be covered in the inquiry.

What deaths wasn’t she on duty for? According to the panorama documentary, there were 13 deaths during the period covered in the trial, and she was present for all of them.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I knew there were deaths on the unit that were not included in the chart but I wasn't aware of if she was on duty or not. I thought the difference was the other babies following known medical pathways and thus the deaths were not "suspicious"?

Allot of the articles we see are in a way correct. the fact those deaths were not included In what was presented to the jury might have influenced the jury in that instance, all of "these" deaths and only she is there? But the stronger of the two facts in this trial was the multiple layers of condemning evidence from which the chart can be excluded and the result will be the same imo. The other deaths even if included in the chart wouldn't make a difference. Would have to be marked "suspicious deaths" and "non suspicious deaths" but no difference really. Its not worth mentioning imo. To present it as news worthy is not exactly high grade.


However a quick reminder to all in the know, remember Mr Myers quite strongly proposed that hospital failings contributed to the deaths yet we didn't see mention by him of these other deaths did we? If poor care had contributed to them in any way presumably we would have heard of them? I think they were obvious illness and so could not be presented in court either by prosecution or defence.

Just thought if a possible motivation, presumably LL knew about the other deaths? You think she saw how much attention the other nurses were getting and wanted the same?

 

[DianaWW]

I knew there were deaths on the unit that were not included in the chart but I wasn't aware of if she was on duty or not. I thought the difference was the other babies following known medical pathways and thus the deaths were not "suspicious"?

Yes that is true. The other 6 deaths were not deemed to be suspicious, although investigations are still ongoing. That being said, the BBC did specify that she was present for them all during the panorama documentary.

Edited to add it’s also mentioned here:

‘As well as the seven murder convictions, Letby was on duty for another six baby deaths at the hospital - and the police have widened their investigation’

Hospital bosses ignored months of doctors' warnings about Lucy Letby

Hospital bosses failed to investigate allegations and tried to silence doctors, BBC investigation finds.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Dotta]

Something new...



"Scribbled notes by the neonatal nurse Lucy Letby, used to help convict her of murdering seven babies,
were written on the advice of professionals
as a way of dealing with extreme stress,
the Guardian has learned.

The notes were relied on as amounting to a confession by the prosecution during her first trial and in the court of appeal,
but sources close to the case said they were produced after counselling sessions
as part of a therapeutic process
in which she was advised to write down her troubling thoughts and feelings."

‘I am evil I did this’: Lucy Letby’s so-called confessions were written on advice of counsellors

Prosecutors used densely written Post-its to build case against nurse, but she was told to write down her feelings to cope with extreme stress, sources say

www.theguardian.com

 

[Ruthbullock]

Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust - Care Quality Commission

www.cqc.org.uk

The hospital itself, is still in dire straits according to the care quality commission

 

[katydid23]

Wow, these people are desperate.

This appears to be a political stunt by this guy.

 

[katydid23]

All evidence presented at trial is open to question, many court cases are decided on less than satisfactory evidence- but they are decided. Some people are even found not guilty, or worse found guilty and later found innocent. Is this not a place for discussion? JMO- I think LL did lead to the death of several babies, but I also think there were other staff on duty who turned a blind eye and potentially could have intervened and chose not to, alongside policies and a laisez faire attitude, the higher up the chain, the more difficult it is to get help. Perhaps she was genuinely inept at her job, colleagues suspected it- in fact from before child A , do they have no culpability, no responsibility as her supervisors to monitor what is happening, to supervise her work? To me that is the second question- the first being where were all other staff during every incident, the alarms would be sounding at the desk, even if not in the rooms, and I have yet to witness other staff not wandering in and watching. The second is if you are on duty and you suspect something nefarious- then it’s your job to keep an eye out and oversee what’s happening. I do question if LL hadn’t been charged- where would this investigation have gone, how many people would have been found culpable and I do agree with people suggesting others should also be held accountable and the data skimming is a factor in that- they haven’t included any of the deaths when LL wasn’t on duty- I understand the logic in a court trial- it’s designed to convict a person, but all the information needs to be shared for the hearing.

There are always going to be deaths in the critical care unit of a hospital. The deaths in question are those that were totally unexpected--- the cases where babies were about to be released for home and suddenly coded, for no apparent reason.

The deaths that were not included were those that had obvious natural causes.

 

[katydid23]

Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust - Care Quality Commission

www.cqc.org.uk

The hospital itself, is still in dire straits according to the care quality commission

Right, but are there babies dying in droves for no apparent reason?