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

Status
Not open for further replies.
but the the doctors must of said why they suspected her you cant just say i suspect without giving a reason
Well, at least one doctor testified that he saw her standing watching a baby desaturate while doing nothing to help.

They suspected her because she was always about when these things happened and was very often acting highly inappropriately, essentially
 
no that dosnt tell me anything i dident already know it certainly does explain why she was suspectedif it wasnt medical or statiscal evdence
 
ive read up a fair bit allready what would you suggest i read
 
Last edited:
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.
Apologies for all the typos it was too late to edit it, but I the main one is I should've put Neena Modi.
 
ive read up a fair bit allready what would you suggest i read
honestly there is yet to be anything of substance that would change the outcome of the trial, this recent gathering of med experts and their opinions on what happened at the hospital is the strongest challenge to the verdicts yet and imo it doesn't reach the bar. I don't think what they say and lucy letby lawyer mark mcdonald will successfully challenge the conviction.
 
the prosecutions insulin expert seems to longer be practicing Registrants details page
dont know the rules but hes actually been based in research for a long long time. that might be different from clinical practice. here he is also. he got this for developing a machine that has been used globally since its invention.

Your hero: We proudly present the winner of our competition to find Britain’s most inspiring health worker — crowned by the PM herself at No10​


Professor Peter Hindmarsh — or The Prof as his small patients call him — is a consultant in paediatric endocrinology and diabetes at University College London Hospitals and Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children.

To both parents and children, he is, quite simply, a hero. That’s why they nominated him for our awards, and last week at a special event at Downing Street, he was announced the overall winner. His prize was a £5,000 holiday from Oliver’s Travels.


ETA. that article has got theresa may in it, did she retire and take up ballroom dancing?
 
Hi rohmer , I do not see in your post on which side of the fence you sit and nor does it matter but your assertion that no psychopath or serial killer would record details of their victims murders is wrong
It implies that all serial killers are the same when in fact they are as individual as you and me some may have traits that seem to create a pattern of sameness but trait and personality differ . I have gathered some links for you to look at .




Neither of us know for sure if Lucy letby is guilty or innocent. We can only form opinion based on the information in front of us . I feel the jury ,LE and the judge made a decision based on the same thought processes .

What is quite telling is how a person behaves .I think this case has the ability to draw a tear from the eye of even the most hardened of law enforcement and many many of us at WS as it involves the most vulnerable. Lucy letby only showed emotion twice during her two trials and the most telling episode was when her married doctor lover spoke , she did not show emotions at any time for any of the babies whom died . This to me reveals a person who lacks empathy, a narcissist will only cry for themselves and one pattern we do see in serial killers is this trait it is often the common denominator that links crimes of this type .


I take your point on serial killers being different. My simple point is that I think her part mea culpa part exculpatory notes are more likely the mind of an innocent person in these circumstances; what would the point of writing these notes be if she is a murderer? I'm just saying it's more likely someone writing down jumbled thoughts in a guilty/stressed out state (guilty because she worked with the babies not because she killed them).

I disagree with your comments on her behaviour. I cannot imagine the stress of being on trial falsely accused of being a serial killer of babies? I think losing a child is the worst thing that can happen to anyone. But I mean, other than losing loved ones, being on trial in such circumstances must be one of the worst things that could happen to someone. In that situation, I don't think her emotional affect can tell us very much. Perfectly decent people with anxiety often have trouble with emotional regulation in difficult situations. If she's innocent, which is what we're trying to determine, she's on trial knowing that she's probably the most abhorred person in the galaxy at that moment. I don't think when she displayed emotion carries much weight.

Moreover, there's a difference between cognitive and emotional empathy, too. Many many people don't really experience much emotional empathy. They may not be super sensitive to the suffering of others; that doesn't preclude them caring very much about other people in a more cognitive/intellectual sense.

Finally, I can relate to her crying when speaking to the person with whom she had the strongest connection, if she is innocent. That isn't necessarily indicative of her coldness towards the babies; it could be in my opinion a classic case of... perhaps when you're sometimes feeling numb or depressed and you speak to someone you're close to and you kind of get jolted out of that emotion and into another.

I think the emotional performance you describe is just as compatible with an innocent person wrongly accused. Look at the way people were accusing Nicola Bulley's partner of having something to do with her murder because he smirked while being interviewed. These things happen to all of us in times of great stress.
 
And this is very true!

We are still seeing articles which use variations on the "....Investigations were started after an unusual spike in deaths and collapses..." which is totally false. LL was under suspicion by a number of consultants for weeks, if not months, due to her constant presence and involvement with serious incidents.

The whole "spike in deaths raised suspicions" line is, as far as it appears to me, due to the fact that that is what the very early reports stated, either because they were simply looking for something to print or because they put two and two together and came up with six.

Her convictions are absolutely not reliant on the "fact" that the prosecution relied on this statistic as evidence against her because they didn't.
Her 'constant presence and involvement with serious incidents' is the thing which experts in statistics are now saying is a statistical abomination if used as the basis of an investigation in the absence of any other evidence. In other words, her constant presence and involvement with serious incidents, given her role, given the probability of serious incidents occurring in a disastrously under resourced hospital, given the probability of these serious incidents being the result of a poor standard of care for the babies versus the probability of her being a serial killer, while very striking and salient for our intuition as humans is not in reality a statistically significant piece of evidence, at all. That's what the experts are saying.
 
Rarely in these types of crimes do we have "concrete " evidence as you put it .IF we did there would have been evidence of Lucy observed in the act .

The majority of evidence presented in court in every case is constructed from separate pieces of information brought together to create a bigger picture .

You argue that all this mountain of circumstantial evidence is really a mountain of rubbish when compared with this New reveal by Dr Lee and the other 13 panelists. What makes this the perfect 'concrete 'evidence for you

In my mind every lawyer can go 'Expert Shopping ' until they find one or a few whom are willing to agree with them . There are I'm sure many many more experts in the neonatal field whom may not agree with these new findings

As you state you worked within the criminal justice system and I have to take that at face value but you should know more than others whom have not that there is no golden ratio of evidence required to place a criminal behind bars it is the sum of all probability that can be argued in court as to ascertain that a person has committed a crime . Very few cases are cut and paste or cookie cutter perfect . As I'm sure the ex criminals you worked with would attest .

I worked with young offenders in an educational setting and each one would have proclaimed their innocence even though their history of offending was as long as my arm or they would not have been in my charge

Is keeping hold of records Lucy allegedly could have retrieved from a bin not akin to the trophies serial killers have been documented to keep of their victims imo it is !!I

One could argue we all as posters have a morbid interest in this case but are other professionals who post here who may work in the same or similar settings to letby keeping files of charges whom die in their care at home I highly doubt it unless they are working from home
Regarding retrieving notes from the bin being akin to serial killers keeping trophies. I see what you're saying that it arguably fits with a bigger picture in which she's guilty of the crimes. But given the fact that there is no concrete evidence, as you admit, the bar for circumstantial evidence to put someone away for life has to be exceedingly high. And the way you would determine her guilt or not is by reviewing the evidence against her and then comparing that to the null hypothesis that she is innocent. So yes, perhaps retrieving notes from the bin on babies she has murdered is one plausible scenario. But her morbidly retrieving notes from the bin on babies who have died in her care is just as plausible and in my opinion a lot more probable. Why? Because remember, the statistics here have been shown to be basically a red herring. So what's more likely, a serial killer murdering babies or babies dying tragically from natural causes and systemic failures and a nurse with a morbid curiosity in collecting information on them.

I suppose reasonable people can disagree, but it strikes me that when you add up the individual probabilites of any one part of Letby's behaviour all together, when you arrive at that full picture and give honest objective odds on how likely it therefore is that she's a killer, I still think it's looking significantly less probable than the other explanation. Given what we know. Serial killers are incredibly incredibly rare. And these failings that led to the deaths might be a lot more likely to have been the cause.

I'm not saying the case was solely made up of statistical or medical evidence, but when those two have been so discredited, the conviction looks unsafe. If 14 or 30 experts pop up in a few months arguing Dr Lee and co are way off, that they're absolutely adamant that air embolism and so on *were* present, at that point I think it would be up to a jury to decide which experts are more plausible and weigh all the other evidence in light of that. But I would say so far it seems pretty telling that most if not all of the experts who have spoken out after the trial have been questioning aspects of the case against her. I haven't really seen anyone coming out strongly in support of the original medical or statistical evidence. If anyone has seen anything compelling then I'm still keeping an open mind.
 
What about the LIES she told about the mother who came to feed her baby expressed milk, at 9 pm, and found Lertby standing over her screaming, bleeding child?

And Letby lied and said they mother did not arrive at 9, it was 10 pm. And Letby claimed the baby was not bleeding when the mother arrived. She accused the mother of being mistaken or deceitful.

But both of the parents testified and had corroborating evidence that the mom did come to the nursery at the appointed time of 9 pm, with the milk, and saw her baby crying in pain and bleeding from his mouth. Letby demanded that she leave the room but mum immediately went to call her husband and franticly described the blood and the screaming.

Letby was CAUGHT out in the trial for lying about that incident, and for changing her medical notes, falsifying times and observations, lying about what time she called for a doctor to look at the cause of the bleeding. And lying and saying there was no feeding appointment for 9 pm.

All of the above was proven in court. The doctor testified against Letby's timeline and vision of events. He refuted her claim that he cancelled the 9 pm feeding. But Letby doubled down and stuck with her lies, saying the parents and the doctor were wrong, ----mistaken or dishonest.

That baby, which was about to be released with his twin brother, died a couple of hours later, of massive internal bleeding, from unknown causes.

Why would Letby lie about what time the mother came to the nursery, or deny that the mother saw her baby bleeding at 9 pm? We know the mother was telling the truth because she called her husband at 9:10 pm and told him about the bleeding, and their phone records were shown as evidence of their testimony.

Letby lied because she had been caught injuring that baby, and she didn't call for a doctor until almost 10 pm. But she had lied and told the mother, at 9 pm, that a doctor was already on the way.

SO I DON'T CARE WHAT THIS MICKEY MOUSE KANGAROO CLOWN SHOW IS TRYING TO SAY NOW. There is nothing they can say which can explain Letby's proven lies about her phony timeline, her lack of calling for medical help, her accusations against the grieving parents, her falsified medical logs used to try and discredit the parents and the attending doctor, etc.

Letby did something to injure that poor child, was caught off guard when mum arrived for feeding, and then she clumsily tried to lie and falsify evidence to cover her tracks.

WE SAW IT UNFOLD IN THE TRIAL. She lied and the jury saw it all as well
 
Here's what a media report says about the incident:

'
Nick Johnson KC, prosecuting, told the jury she “interrupted Lucy Letby who was attacking [Baby E]”.

He added: “She did not realise it at the time but I’m going to suggest why you can be confident that is what happened. When [she] arrived, [Baby E] was acutely distressed and he was bleeding from his mouth.”

Johnson said Letby allegedly tried to reassure the boy’s mother, telling her the blood was due to a nasogastric tube irritating his throat, adding: “Trust me, I’m a nurse’ – that’s what she [Letby] told the mother.”

The infant, who weighed 1.3kg (just under 3lbs) at birth, rapidly deteriorated and was pronounced dead less than five hours after Letby was seen attacking him, the jury was told.

A doctor present said he “had never seen a baby bleed like this” and that the child lost more than a quarter of his total blood volume, the court heard.

Baby E’s death was initially put down to a gastrointestinal disorder that can occur in premature babies and no postmortem was undertaken. This, Johnson said, was “a big mistake”.

Experts later concluded that Baby E died as a result of gas intentionally injected into his bloodstream and “bleeding indicative of trauma”, the jury was told.

Letby took an “unusual interest” in the twins’ family, searching for them on social media two days after Baby E’s death and several times over the following months – even on Christmas Day 2015, the court heard.

The nurse allegedly “wiped out” the mother’s visit from the medical records then falsely claimed to be in another room when Baby E collapsed. This, the prosecution alleged, was Letby trying to establish an “alibi in someone else’s medical records”.

Jurors were told that Letby then took a “sinister” interested in Baby E’s twin brother, six-day old Baby F.

The nurse allegedly administered a feeding bag laced with insulin to Baby F less than 24 hours after his sibling had died.'

But these experts, one of whom has been studying insulin in neonates his entire life, have said that the experts who later concluded that Baby F had been administered with a feeding bag laced with insulin are wrong and that their levels of peptides or whatever are within the perfectly normal range and so it's very likely a false positive insulin reading. What these experts also say is that consultants clearly didn't know what they were doing and in one case made a common error that students are warned about avoiding in medical school. So if these experts are in fact more knowledgeable and reliable than those who testified at the trial, as by all accounts they seem to be, that means that Letby wasn't attacking the baby. And the back and forth about who can remember what, who said and done what when in an emergency situation or a gravely serious and high pressure situation, it definitely seems a lot less sinister and more innocuous and explainable in that objective light.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Keep Websleuths Free

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
55
Guests online
4,770
Total visitors
4,825

Forum statistics

Threads
618,679
Messages
18,387,641
Members
238,145
Latest member
swifty85
Back
Top