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

[katydid23]

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.

The problem Myers had is that the things he brought up, like the toxic plumbing and short staffing problems did not account for the sudden collapses of the babies.

The toxic plumbing issues could have created deadly infections but none of the autopsies nor blood tests of the survivors showed any kind of infection in the victims.

And the short staffing did mean some babies may have waited longer for feedings or diaper changes or prescriptions, but again, none of that is lethal. The sudden unexplained collapses could not be attributed to the 'suboptimal care' described by the defence. Even Lucy, who kept saying COC often gave suboptimal care, could not come up with any specific real life examples of how that seriously affected any of the patients.

There were clear and detailed medical logs for each of the babies, showing the care they each received, around the clock by their designated nurses and doctors.

It is hard to find experts to back up the accusations if the medical reports do not show infections from dirty water or from unchanged diapers or negligence. IMO

 

[katydid23]

The strange thing about this, is that the unit had 2 and 3 deaths in 2013 and 2014 (or was it 3 and 4?) So even without Letby, there was a huge increase on the years previous, it seems. 9 deaths..

I think there's a possibility that she was involved with a few more deaths but they didn't have a clear enough connection to show guilt---and if they had some that didn't seem connected, the jury might disallow all of them.

In the ones that came to trial, there were suspicious circumstances, like her changing or distorting her medical logs, changing or distorting her witness testimony, in conflict with other witnesses, and evidence of her being in care of the victims during the time preceding their collapse.

If there were a few cases where they didn't have those circumstances, OR there were other obvious potential causes of death, they might have decided not to charge her in those?

 

[Sweeper2000]

I think there's a possibility that she was involved with a few more deaths but they didn't have a clear enough connection to show guilt---and if they had some that didn't seem connected, the jury might disallow all of them.

In the ones that came to trial, there were suspicious circumstances, like her changing or distorting her medical logs, changing or distorting her witness testimony, in conflict with other witnesses, and evidence of her being in care of the victims during the time preceding their collapse.

If there were a few cases where they didn't have those circumstances, OR there were other obvious potential causes of death, they might have decided not to charge her in those?

Makes sense really, if I some of those other cases there is little evidence it may be a bad reflection on the charges as a whole. Choose from the strongest cases, get those and then maybe at a later date make a case about the other ones.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Any NNU nurses on here with experience on those endotracheal tubes? @marynnu @magicarp anyone else? 40% sounds like allot.

 

[marynnu]

Any NNU nurses on here with experience on those endotracheal tubes? @marynnu @magicarp anyone else? 40% sounds like allot.

It does sound a lot. And 1% sounds very few! Either way it's quite a difference. I don't suppose whoever checked the notes expected this. The problem is, this isn't something you normally keep a record of in my experience, so it's very hard to judge what is normal.

 

[Sweeper2000]

It does sound a lot. And 1% sounds very few! Either way it's quite a difference. I don't suppose whoever checked the notes expected this. The problem is, this isn't something you normally keep a record of in my experience, so it's very hard to judge what is normal.

I didn't think it would be logged and collated. I couldn't say for sure but I don't think logically it's relevant to the medical aspect of things is it? As in the dislodgement itself. If that's the case the only reason one may keep a log of it is to use it as a way of checking for killers and harmers and the likelihood of that makes it meaningless as a measure in constant practice.

However that tube is probably critical to the health of the baby in care presumably so a potential lesson here is that HCK's target the essentials and any gross disparity in numbers to "normal levels" should be noted.

 

[Tortoise]

If you wish to take a listen to my latest episode.

Really interesting to see (hear) her manipulation techniques at play. Saying a lot of nonsense, with confidence that she is believable. She is very experienced at bald-faced lying and contradicting herself - manipulating by obfuscating, repeatedly.

She says "because at that point they didn't know, hadn't a clue what had happened". In my opinion, she is revealing it is now known, and also that she knows no one saw what she did.

There are some really interesting insights also, into how she admits many times she can't cope when she can't control the situation. This is the key to her actions, IMO. Not having control of others. Needing to control others.

I am still struck by one of her first lines in the note. "I can't breathe". She took the breath, literally, of these babies. I think when she was not able to deceive, not able to control, she thought she would die. Perhaps when she killed them she didn't have to experience that feeling herself, because she was in control. But she would have to keep on doing it, once that feeling of empowerment subsided.

MOO

 

[ColourPurple]

Really interesting to see (hear) her manipulation techniques at play. Saying a lot of nonsense, with confidence that she is believable. She is very experienced at bald-faced lying and contradicting herself - manipulating by obfuscating, repeatedly.

She says "because at that point they didn't know, hadn't a clue what had happened". In my opinion, she is revealing it is now known, and also that she knows no one saw what she did.

There are some really interesting insights also, into how she admits many times she can't cope when she can't control the situation. This is the key to her actions, IMO. Not having control of others. Needing to control others.

I am still struck by one of her first lines in the note. "I can't breathe". She took the breath, literally, of these babies. I think when she was not able to deceive, not able to control, she thought she would die. Perhaps when she killed them she didn't have to experience that feeling herself, because she was in control. But she would have to keep on doing it, once that feeling of empowerment subsided.

MOO

I noticed something in the interview that has made me raise an eyebrow.


Police: What made the first part of 2016 so challenging then?

LL: Just reflecting all the year that we had had before and I think it just affected morale on the unit we were all feeling... it's a shock we're not used to deaths like that and when you're involved with them.

Police: Okay at which point did the unit start to feel like that ?

LL: l'd say about earlier in the year perhaps January

Police: January ? Why particularly then what had happened?

LL: Im not sure specifically its just with it being the new year and things people were just hoping for a better year and then things happened again

Police: Things happened again? what do you mean?

LL: We continued to have sick babies and lost some babies

Police: Were there any in particular that you lost that you recall?

LL: When? At that time period?

Police: Yes

LL: Cant remember specifically then no

Ok so in January 2016, new year, they were all hoping for a better year but “things” started happening again and babies got sick and they lost babies…

OK… except there were no charges at all between Baby J on 27th November 2015 and Baby K on 17th February 2016. So what was she remembering that had happened in January ?

Source: from 22.12 minutes

 

[joltz]

It's already been stated that the other deaths were either expected or the babies had life threatening things which means they did not survive.

But if they suspect Letby and don't have the evidence to charge, then would this still be the official line about these babies.

How must the parents of these 9 babies be feeling about this. Some of these babies will more than likely have had Letby as the designated nurse.

 

[Ruby12345]

The strange thing about this, is that the unit had 2 and 3 deaths in 2013 and 2014 (or was it 3 and 4?) So even without Letby, there was a huge increase on the years previous, it seems. 9 deaths..

There was also a 25% rise in still births.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I liked when recently Richard Baker said people prefer evil to be distinguishable from ourselves, its a statement true to its core. I do believe people may reject that evil might be no different from themselves and in finding that it would be the easier option to reject it.

"If you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you".

Nietzsche

 

[marynnu]

It's already been stated that the other deaths were either expected or the babies had life threatening things which means they did not survive.

But if they suspect Letby and don't have the evidence to charge, then would this still be the official line about these babies.

How must the parents of these 9 babies be feeling about this. Some of these babies will more than likely have had Letby as the designated nurse.

Exactly. Just because they were expected to die doesn't mean they weren't 'helped along'. We'll never know.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Anyone know anything about FOA requests? I'm just wondering if we could put a request in to the coch or relevant body and get all the info about those two years 15/16. I know we know the totals but if we get more info on collapses and deaths such as dates we might be able to determine a pattern. Presumably ok to do now after the trial.

There are several already available for both the countess of Chester and Liverpool women’s hospital- once they are requested via the site they are open to the public. There are many FOI requests to the countess that have also been refused or are still under consideration from that time period as well. They are available on what do they know. This won’t be every FOI submitted- just the ones requested through the site.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Here's a good article about how solid the evidence is despite the recent doubt and questioning.

Evidence against Lucy Letby must be seen in context, says inquiry

Experts in a range of fields have expressed doubts over the safety of the nurse’s convictions for killing babies at a hospital neo-natal unit

www.thetimes.com

"Baby O and Baby P were two of triplet siblings born at 33 weeks gestation. This is roughly a month before babies are normally considered full term. A baby of 33 weeks’ gestation would normally have higher than a 99 per cent chance of survival at birth, Dr Stephen Brearey, a consultant paediatrician, told the trial. As a level two unit, the hospital normally only cared for babies older than 27 weeks’ gestation"

"Positive immunoassay results are not sufficient as binding toxicological evidence of foul play in a criminal prosecution for murder,” Professor Alan Wayne Jones, an expert in forensic chemistry, told The Times last month.


"Keith Frayn, an emeritus professor of human metabolism at the University of Oxford who has been using immunoassay for insulin since the 1970s, rejected the notion that the tests were unreliable. “I don’t think many people who know about insulin assays would say you can disregard those tests,” he said. “They are very clear"

 

[Jazmania]

Here's a link to a freedom of information request that breaks the deaths down by month in 2015 and 2016.

Neonatal deaths and FOIs - a Freedom of Information request to Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

I would like to request the following information under the FOIA: 1) A listing in Word or Excel format from of all FOI requests since April 2016 for the following: - Unique FOI ID - Date of FOI request - Description of request, as recorded on the FOI system 2) The number of monthly, since...

www.whatdotheyknow.com

I think it's clear from the reporting that she was present for many of the other, non-trial, deaths - but not all of them. I hope that one day we will get an answer to how many exactly she was present for.

 

[Jazmania]

Here's a link to a freedom of information request that breaks the deaths down by month in 2015 and 2016.

Neonatal deaths and FOIs - a Freedom of Information request to Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

I would like to request the following information under the FOIA: 1) A listing in Word or Excel format from of all FOI requests since April 2016 for the following: - Unique FOI ID - Date of FOI request - Description of request, as recorded on the FOI system 2) The number of monthly, since...

www.whatdotheyknow.com

I think it's clear from the reporting that she was present for many of the other, non-trial, deaths - but not all of them. I hope that one day we will get an answer to how many exactly she was present for.

For example from the inquiry, it appears that January 2016 was a flashpoint, where 3 babies died. This prompted the consultants to get together and discuss their alarm at what was happening, and Letby's presence at many of the deaths was pointed out. Now none of the babies in the trial died in January, so it's likely that she was present for some of these January deaths IMO.

 

[Kemug]

I just can't believe that there was absolutely nothing untoward in her childhood, at least in high school. But I suppose she was already skilled in dissembling.

 

[Parker Knoll]

There must have been a trigger at some point.
You don’t just wake up one morning and plot all of this.
She’s a monster end of.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Latest podcast. A warning though, the first two minutes is an advert for plumper lips

 

[Sweeper2000]

Here's a question for anyone. I'm wondering what you thought was the most interesting aspect of this trial was?

As an example could be the dynamic between docs and management that seemed to be going on for ages. Could be that Lucy is the beige demon, could be doc choc or how long it took to go to trial, could be the evidence damning her or anything really.

For me I think it's her being the beige demon. It's difficult to place her as being the root cause of so much suffering but its more believable by the day. I also found the actual trial so interesting with a highlight on the insubstantial defence.