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 #36

[greenwoodlad]

weather she was convicted on the medical evidence alone can only be known to the jury who convicted her but without the medical she couldn't of even been charged you can't charge someone with murder without producing medical that a murder has happened so you cant say that the medical evdence is irrelevant

absolutely

 

[mrC]

the doctors who did the autopsies and sighned the death certificates dident sugest there had been a murder and they would of had the advantage of actually examining the body

 

[JosieJo]

Hospital policy does not require it agree - but i've worked in medical settings where despite being not "required" we had to record every ml of insulin and every other drug administered , controlled or not as the establishment had decided to implement measures above and beyond what was required so every ml was accounted for - just because its not "required" doesn't mean it isn't implemented in some healthcare and medical establishments....

I don't disagree it could be implemented ...but in my nhs hospital and many on here and the COCH it wasn't

 

[Tortoise]

the doctors who did the autopsies and sighned the death certificates dident sugest there had been a murder and they would of had the advantage of actually examining the body

That's because they are only looking for natural causes.


From Thirlwall inquiry: evidence of one of the pathologists -

My question: why is it necessary to conduct paediatric postmortem examinations in combination with a forensic pathologist?

A. Well, if there is a suspicion that criminal activity may have led to the death or in some types of traumatic death where we might need the assistance of someone with forensic expertise then we perform the postmortem jointly and the role of the forensic pathologist is to consider matters of forensic importance and particularly those relating to injuries,and the role of the paediatric pathologist is to consider natural causes of death and look at growth and development and other medical conditions.

Q. So when you say the forensic pathologist looking for injuries, do you mean potentially deliberate infliction of injuries?

A. Yes.

Q. Because there is a suspicion --

A. Yes.

Q. -- that they may have been caused? Does that really from the off dictate who and how the pathology investigation should be being undertaken; if there is a suspicion, they go down a different route?

A. Yes. If, when a death is reported to the Coroner, it's clear that there -- it is a suspicious death from the outset, then the police will be involved and a forensic pathologist will be instructed as well as a paediatric pathologist.

--

Q. If he asked you the question: is there any evidence of deliberate external administration of air, how would you have answered that? What would you have said to that?

A. Well, that --

Q. Is that within your expertise or not?

A. That would have alerted us the fact that this was a concern of a criminal case and that this needed a much more in-depth and forensic pathology opinion. So if he had said that to us, we wouldn't have made a brief email response; it would have been apparent that that needed a very different approach.

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Thirlwall-Inquiry-12-November-2024.pdf

 

[mrC]

well why wernt why dident the doctors voice there suspicions with the pathologist they cleary didn't

 

[Tortoise]

well why wernt why dident the doctors voice there suspicions with the pathologist they cleary didn't

Firstly, they were getting serious pushback for raising concerns, and warnings not to speak about it, and it would have involved the hospital contacting the police which the executives refused to do for another year. After the final two deaths (O&P) the doctors refused to let her back on the ward.

Secondly, five of the seven (A, C, D, E & I) babies had died by the time they were suspicious of deliberate harm.

 

[mrC]

so a trained pathologist examined 5 babys and not noticed anything suspicious yes it he wasnt looking for anything suspicious but then agian no pathologist is there looking for the cause of death what ever it is

 

[Tortoise]

so a trained pathologist examined 5 babys and not noticed anything suspicious yes it he wasnt looking for anything suspicious but then agian no pathologist is there looking for the cause of death what ever it is

more evidence from the pathologist at the link provided above

Q. Now, the X-rays in this case, both in life and postmortem, were reviewed as part of the criminal trial by Professor Owen Arthurs, a professor of paediatric radiology at Great Ormond Street Hospital and by a number of members of a multi-disciplinary team and it was noted that there were changes consistent with air embolism on various X-rays taken in life and following death and that there was air in the great vessels. Can you explain where the great vessels are?

A. Well, great vessels you would normally talk about the large vessels in the neck, so for example the large veins leading to the heart or the large vessels leading from the heart. I'm not sure if they are talking about descending aorta as well.

Q. Again, the observation of air in blood vessels on X-rays is something that requires the specialist input of a radiologist?

A. Yes.

Q. It isn't something that you would expect to be able to do on seeing an X-ray yourself?

A. No.

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Thirlwall-Inquiry-12-November-2024.pdf

 

[mrC]

but nobody thought the xrays were suspicious at the time and a radiologist would of looked at them at the time

 

[Tortoise]

but nobody thought the xrays were suspicious at the time and a radiologist would of looked at them at the time

They are looking for natural causes of death.

 

[mrC]

you dont have to suspect foul play in order to find it

 

[notsure]

so a trained pathologist examined 5 babys and not noticed anything suspicious yes it he wasnt looking for anything suspicious but then agian no pathologist is there looking for the cause of death what ever it is

Your writing style is a bit difficult to understand. All I would say is all the points you appear to raise were covered in depth during the trial. Did you follow it at all at the time?

 

[JosieJo]

you dont have to suspect foul play in order to find it

Maybe not if you looking at a shooting or stabbing etc..but as it was explained in Thirlwall enquiry it's a totally different level of examination that is required

 

[Marantz4250b]

The <modsnip - reference to unapproved source> and others in the media keep repeating the claim that the statistical evidence is beside the point but they’re completely missing the point. Without that, there would be no investigation. And I believe a preponderance of experts in statistics have pointed out that this investigation was launched on the basis of a ‘statistical abomination’.

To point out - yet again - that this is simply untrue!

Statistical evidence was NOT the root cause of the investigation. That is a myth that has been around since the reports of her initial arrest.

The investigation of LL was categorically not initiated due to someone noticing increasing death rates when they collated the figures month after month. Her association to the indicidents was noticed by doctors - and other staff - during the time the events were happening, not after the fact.

People, including the media, need to stop repeating this myth. It is well known now that it is untrue and it needs to be corrected in the historical record. It's reaching the point now where it's transitioning from myth to outright lie.

 

[mrC]

if statistical and medical were not the cause of investigation what was i can't see any other reason they would investigate

 

[notsure]

if statistical and medical were not the cause of investigation what was i can't see any other reason they would investigate

Unexplained collapses and deaths of numerous babies when LL was on duty. The junior doctors even referred to her as Nurse Death.

Junior doctors called Lucy Letby 'Nurse Death', inquiry told

The NHS's response to serial killer Lucy Letby's crimes is being examined in a public inquiry.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Highlandspring]

even if you ustion doctor lees impartially what about the other 13 doctors who agree with him most of whom dident even know who lucy letby is

The neonatologist alongside Lee last Tuesday, Neema Modi, also has conflict of interest. She headed up the RCPCH when it totally messed up a review into the unit. Her staff were misled by CoCH medical director Ian Harvey (still protecting Letby at that time, Sep 2016) who didn't brief them properly, leading them to totally overlook doctors' concerns re the nature of cause of deaths and suspicions, meaning they interviewed Letby which wasn't in the brief. There were several other failures with their investigation. Their report was delayed report and its status re redactions was miscommunicated which and meant the victims' families received it prematurely without any explanations or support. And their findings, after as I say an inadequate investigation, a Letby interview (who had just been redeployed and had started a grievance against the consultants), a misunderstanding of the brief and a complete mess up of the report, found the consultants responsible for unfair treatment (including spreading rumours) of Letby. The executives, Harvey and Chambers (CEO) then ordered the senior consultants to apologise to Letby including Drs Brearey and Jayaram, and Dr McCormack (I think) who had never met Letby nor named her, as she'd accused him of. At the same time the execitives ordered the Letby issue (my words) to be closed and for the process of her retirn tp the NNU to be started.

The delays of the report (months) delayed even further the escalation of consultants' concerns to the police, and their concerns of course were heightened with Letby's potential return to work.

In early 2018, during the police investigation by which time the RCPCH report was history, Dr Brearey reached out to Neena Modi (RCCH president) for support on various current issues eg support in what the unit was going through (police investigation) and for help in securing additional consultants. He also politely called out the RCPCH for exacerbating their problems and delays.

She was obviously not very happy about the valid criticism and made it clear. (See Thirlwall inquiry documents). She also approached Letby's defence team (Myers').

Therefore she is not impartial. Also there's an interesting interview she took part in in the Guardian just after the trial ended dated 20 August 2023, it was asking various neonate health experts their suggestions for future prevention. You have to scroll down a bit but Modi's reported as asking why the high quality NHS data on newborns wasn't yet being used to flag up rises in unexpected collapses. And also called for better response and systems to support whistleblowers with ease of reporting.

The irony.

So that makes 12 impartial experts. As far as we know.

 

[Marantz4250b]

if statistical and medical were not the cause of investigation what was i can't see any other reason they would investigate

It was a combination of factors. It was a ten month trial - it's all in there.

As mentioned, the initial concerns about her were raised by a group of consultants, not by someone collating death stats. These concerns were raised because they noticed that she was always in close proximity to the events and such events didn't happen when she wasn't there.

 

[mrC]

but the the doctors must of said why they suspected her you cant just say i suspect without giving a reason

 

[notsure]

but the the doctors must of said why they suspected her you cant just say i suspect without giving a reason

Here's some info that might help:

Lucy Letby: What did the nurse do to babies in her care?

Neonatal nurse Lucy Letby is found guilty of murdering seven babies and trying to kill six others.

www.bbc.co.uk