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

[Jazmania]

This new reporting by the Guardian as well, that she wrote those notes on the advice of her GP, is utter rubbish. Why, if so, did she not say so in her multiple police interviews and when she spent 2 weeks on the stand in the trial.

 

[Becky53]

Lots if stuff coming out.

What do peeps think of this?

"Dr Jane Hawdon, a consultant neonatologist at the Royal Free hospital in London, was asked by the CoC to review 17 cases in which babies had collapsed or died in more detail and individually. The conclusions of her report, seen by the Guardian, were that the deaths or collapses of 13 babies could be explained, and “may have been prevented with different care”. Four cases she was unsure about were reviewed in forensic detail by a further neonatologist who is understood not to have found foul play."

A superbug, doctor shortages and a neonatal unit ‘out of its depth’: failures at Lucy Letby hospital revealed

As the Thirwall hearings approach, the Guardian has discovered concerns were repeatedly raised about alarming shortcomings at Countess of Chester

www.theguardian.com

It's a long article, covers many things.

From Aug 2023

Ian Harvey, who was then medical director at the hospital, contacted London-based neonatologist Dr Jane Hawdon.

The doctor, who specialises in the care of newborns, did a brief review of each baby's medical notes.

However she told the trust she did not have the time to conduct the thorough investigation the Royal College had recommended.

It is understood Dr Hawdon did not speak directly to the board but sent her report and it was up to executives to brief the board on its findings.

In a statement to the BBC, Sir Duncan said: "I believe that the board was misled in December 2016 when it received a report on the outcome of the external, independent case reviews.

"We were told explicitly that there was no criminal activity pointing to any one individual, when in truth the investigating neonatologist had stated that she had not had the time to complete the necessary in-depth case reviews."

Lucy Letby: Hospital bosses were misled, former chair claims

NHS trust board was told there was 'no criminal activity pointing to any one individual', he says.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Marantz4250b]

If you want to find out Letby's real reasons for writing those notes take a listen to CS2C's recent video on it. He's pulled up the court transcripts regarding what she said in her police interviews when questioned precisely about that. The Guardian's unnamed source is contradicting Letby herself.

I've just watched this and I agree with everything. The Guardian is for some reason held out as some paragon of saintly virtue (mostly by itself, I have to say) yet it is nothing of the sort. As has become so common these days, it has lowered itself to the same level as every other mainstream outlet by often quoting "unnamed" or "anonymous" sources "close" to the case as an excuse to print literally anything they like.

News media almost never used to do this except in extremely rare circumstances where there might be a risk to life or national security. They didn't do it for obvious reasons - it's too easy for your story to be rubbished as you can't check where it came from.

As someone who lived with a journalist for years I know this is how it should work. Believe me, I've tried to get stories written on the basis of me being the course and she always said "....nope, only if you go on the record.... and we both knew the stories were true. Still wouldn't do it.

We can see in this case about the notes that their "anonymous" source is completely wrong - or someone simply invented it.

 

[Sweeper2000]

If you want to find out Letby's real reasons for writing those notes take a listen to CS2C's recent video on it. He's pulled up the court transcripts regarding what she said in her police interviews when questioned precisely about that. The Guardian's unnamed source is contradicting Letby herself.

The thing I found notable about the reasons she gave for writing those notes was that she didn't give an origin. Made me think that for some reason she missed that it was advised to do so. I thought that seemed credible tbh but that evidence to me is without weight. Allot of my thoughts are now wondering what happens if she gets an appeal and what would qualify for one. New evidence etc

From Aug 2023

Ian Harvey, who was then medical director at the hospital, contacted London-based neonatologist Dr Jane Hawdon.

The doctor, who specialises in the care of newborns, did a brief review of each baby's medical notes.

However she told the trust she did not have the time to conduct the thorough investigation the Royal College had recommended.

It is understood Dr Hawdon did not speak directly to the board but sent her report and it was up to executives to brief the board on its findings.

In a statement to the BBC, Sir Duncan said: "I believe that the board was misled in December 2016 when it received a report on the outcome of the external, independent case reviews.

"We were told explicitly that there was no criminal activity pointing to any one individual, when in truth the investigating neonatologist had stated that she had not had the time to complete the necessary in-depth case reviews."

Lucy Letby: Hospital bosses were misled, former chair claims

NHS trust board was told there was 'no criminal activity pointing to any one individual', he says.

www.bbc.co.uk

That's a joke. Obviously and without doubt needs a serious evaluation to get any sort of feasible take on them. Is that even admissible?

 

[Sweeper2000]

I don't understand why the defence wouldn't bring in this report as evidence, including the neonatologist as a witness. It is baffling to me. I don't really know what to think, given there is no detail really on the findings of the report, and whether she was asked to consider deliberate sabotaging as a cause. If she identified natural ways which could have caused these babies' deaths, then why wasn't this heard in trial as well as the other neonatologist report?

I for one thought and still think the evidence proving her guilt is overwhelming. But part of that is that the case was so one sided. Almost 10 months of evidence saying she was guilty. And one plumber for the defence. Myers brought up many of these things (hospital failings) as a defence, but was unable to find any expert to back up what he was saying. If he had had experts and reports to back this up, maybe there would have been more doubt. I don't get why he wouldn't include this in the defence. He must have known about the report. It's so weird. I hope that some of these questions will be answered in this review that's about to take place.

One significant aspect from the initial trial was the total lack of strength in the defence. I was sure he could find at least one doc willing to contest the prosecution and then he didn't and I thought "wellll that says something by itself".

I might wonder and am currently thinking maybe Mr myers knew where he was at in terms if evidence and so perhaps layed the groundwork for a potentially successful appeal? Later on once new evidence was allowed in? Presumably he knew what was the evidence in the first trial and worked around that, all the while thinking further down the line.

 

[Dotta]

What a paradox!

During our discussions while following the original trial

I remember we anticipated a "flood" of info concerning the defendant,
(her behaviour, her oddities, any worrying/negative signals during childhood, and later, etc.)
after the trial and appeals.

Nothing of this sort has emerged.

Quite the contrary,
her childhood seemed typical, her friends never said anything against her.
No scandalous gossip.

Instead,
what appeared has been a "flood" all right,
but one of support and loyalty.

And it is growing.

This is another surprising aspect of this unusual case for me.

JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

I'm not sure I expected anything really bizarre or "that's what a killer would do" or anything like that but I did expect oddities in her behaviour socially, the stuff we heard in the trial was all that we are going to get for that I think.

I believe she has had therapy before or counselling either and or but I doubt it was anything too interesting. Whoever she was seeing has a duty to hand that information over either when requested or before problems start. Would have been gold dust for the prosecution. Its not fitting to think she would have disclosed that info either, if she had that mask on whilst murdering babies she wouldn't take it off for a therapist or counsellor imo.

ETA. Yes this support and weird public interest bothers me. I don't see why looking at the evidence that people would think along the lines we have heard in the media. Without new evidence most centrally being a challenge to the prosecutions experts accounts on the med files, there is no reason to think the trial was unfair or that the jury got it wrong. No reason at all as far as I can see. I would hate to think this level of support is based on her "not looking very murdery" especially when murdery people often know that not looking very murdery is in their interests.

 

[Sweeper2000]

This is the kind if thing that bothers me.

"Last month, a group of 24 senior doctors wrote to the health secretary Wes Streeting, calling for the inquiry this week to postponed.

The letter said the natural assumption that the nurse was a murderer could mean important lessons were missed.
“Possible negligent deaths that were presumed to be murders could result in an incomplete investigation of the management response to the crisis,” the letter said.

In particular, concerns were raised over statistics on the number of deaths at the hospital’s neonatal unit, with it claimed that there were six deaths on the unit in the same period when Letby was not present that were NOT REVEALED to the jury.
Warwick University’s Prof Jane Hutton told the BBC the way the figures were presented was NOT IN A WAY THAT SHOULD BE".

Lucy Letby latest: Killer’s barrister says anger must be redirected if found innocent

Lucy Letby’s new legal team is preparing to launch a fresh appeal over the killer’s convictions

www.independent.co.uk

I would like to ask if anyone thinks the jury would have looked at the cases differently had they of included the other deaths in their presentation of the statistics ?

That may make some think that it was an unfair trial at least in part as there was no mention of other deaths at the unit as far as I can remember.

To be fair its another question to me as I can't see why the prosecution wouldn't present these other deaths. They are within normal margins and explainable medically, I genuinely can't see a reason to exclude them.

 

[Tortoise]

Trial testimony from Dr Evans, from media report, not from transcripts, which would provide more detail:

He is asked about his 'state of mind' in his approach to the cases.
"My state of mind was very clear - let's find a diagnosis. Nothing to do with crime. Let's identify any specific collapse, and see if I can explain it.
"There were occasions where I couldn't explain it, and occasions where I found something deeply suspicious.
"There were incidents I found disturbing."
He was asked to investigate 33 cases in total, with two insulin cases later.
He said there were two babies were born in unsurvivable conditions, with obvious medical diagnoses.
He said: "The name Lucy Letby meant nothing to me. I didn't know the staff.
"I was the easiest physician and the most difficult. I was a blank sheet of paper. I had no idea and relied entirely on the evidence I could see from the clinical notes and applying my clinical experience and forming an opinion to the cause."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, October 25

Just because they weren't on the chart produced of shifts pertaining to the alleged crimes, doesn't mean the jury wasn't told about other deaths and collapses.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Trial testimony from Dr Evans, from media report, not from transcripts, which would provide more detail:

He is asked about his 'state of mind' in his approach to the cases.
"My state of mind was very clear - let's find a diagnosis. Nothing to do with crime. Let's identify any specific collapse, and see if I can explain it.
"There were occasions where I couldn't explain it, and occasions where I found something deeply suspicious.
"There were incidents I found disturbing."
He was asked to investigate 33 cases in total, with two insulin cases later.
He said there were two babies were born in unsurvivable conditions, with obvious medical diagnoses.
He said: "The name Lucy Letby meant nothing to me. I didn't know the staff.
"I was the easiest physician and the most difficult. I was a blank sheet of paper. I had no idea and relied entirely on the evidence I could see from the clinical notes and applying my clinical experience and forming an opinion to the cause."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, October 25

Just because they weren't on the chart produced of shifts pertaining to the alleged crimes, doesn't mean the jury wasn't told about other deaths and collapses.

You sure? I don't remember ever hearing of the total deaths for any given year. I totally see about the rota, it was made in Relation to "suspicious" deaths. I might see a point if one was to say "the prosecution presented the statistics In a skewed way that made an association with deaths on the unit and Lucy letby when there were other deaths that were not mentioned". I genuinely don't recall mentioning of any other deaths on the unit.

 

[Tortoise]

You sure? I don't remember ever hearing of the total deaths for any given year. I totally see about the rota, it was made in Relation to "suspicious" deaths. I might see a point if one was to say "the prosecution presented the statistics In a skewed way that made an association with deaths on the unit and Lucy letby when there were other deaths that were not mentioned". I genuinely don't recall mentioning of any other deaths on the unit.

Dr Evans mentions two of them in that report I just posted. We don't know what else wasn't reported, because the reporter was not taking down all the testimony word for word. The point is we know at least two were disclosed at that juncture.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Sorry initially confused it for being Dr Evans speaking in the media not at court. I also thought it was probably excluded as its quite relevant maybe even essential information but for it to not be included anywhere as far as I can recall then most likely excluded. Obviously a different case if that info was presented as well though.

 

[Sweeper2000]

@CS2C anything you can pull from the transcripts please about the total amount of deaths for any particular year being made known to the jury? Almost seems excluded from media reports.