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

[Furore]

YEs, we are sure. In the trial, they showed the medical logs of all the attending doctors. Letby did not call about the bleeding infant until 9:45 pm.

It was shown during the trial that Letby did not contact the doctor about the bleeding baby, even though she told the mom that she had already called for the doctor at 9 pm. That was a lie and it was proven to be a lie in court.

Both parents testified about the bleeding crying baby, and showed phone records corroborating the call at 9 pm.

The mother told her husband about the baby crying pain, being inconsolable, and about Nurse Letby demanding that mom leAve the room because the doctor was on his way.

Letby denied that in court, and she denied that the mother came to the nursery at 9 pm with her expressed milk. But it was shown in court that there was a hospital feeding schedule showing that the mom was scheduled for a 9 pm feed appointment and the mom had expressed her milk at 8:30 pm.

So it makes perfect sense that mom would go to the nursery at 9 pm, AS SCHEDULED.

Letby tried to say that the doctor cancelled the Feed, but the doctor denied doing so, and showed the court his medical logs. They did not corroborate Letby's claim that he cancelled the feeding.

Letby FALSIFIED her own medical logs in order to pretend that the mom never arrived with milk at 9 pm. But she was caught in a lie during court.

Both of the parents, the midwife and the attending doctors denied Letby's claims.

This was the turning point in the trial, in my opinion. Once the jury heard the grieving, sincere testimonies from the parents, who had corroboration from phone records and the feeding schedule, they realised Letby was lying.

Why would a nurse lie about that timeline if she was innocent?

Lucy was the only person in sight and she was within a few feet of the crying, screaming infant. She was doing nothing to comfort or attend to the child, and she did not phone for a doctor to attend.

You have to understand that during the trial, there were 26 incidents, much like this one.

Also, whenever Lucy went on her 2 week holiday, no babies collapsed or died. On her last holiday vacation, a baby died on the day she left for vacation, then no collapses for 14 days, and then on the very day she returned, one died that morning and his twin collapsed that afternoon. That was a the day she was finally taken off the floor.

Agreed, there is so much more nuance to the months of trial proceedings, and testimony, than is encapsulated in the click bait news.

In addition to the completely over represented collapses, in my opinion, for one nurse, they often occurred with sinister coincidence on particular occasions, such as Father’s Day, the infants’ due date or other poignant occasions.

Sadly, outside hospital, if there are frequent unexplained collapses or life threatening events that occur always in the presence of one parent or carer, one would have to consider abuse (flagged in a recent Royal College of Paediatrics guide to detecting child abuse), and I don’t see why we wouldn’t hold medical professionals to the same if not greater standards than parents.

Moreover what will prove interesting to me is the investigation of further deaths and incidents under Letby’s care on other rotations or nursing placements - there will be more information to come, plenty of which Crown courts will also have insight into.

I do think she was becoming rather bold in her attacks and the intensifying frequency- all JMO - and I’m not sure this was a brand new playing field for her.

 

[Eloise]

Not a popular opinion here but my opinion has changed on this case. I am back to my first pre-trial opinion, which is that she is a scapegoat. She deserves an appeal or retrial. JMO but I think she'll ultimately walk free, even if it takes a ridiculously long time.

Side notes, I'm pretty shocked by how hard it actually is to get an appeal in the UK. I come from somewhere where appeals are almost routine, so maybe I'm biased. But the UK system seems very old-fashioned. I'm also starting to think subjudice laws hurt everyone and are unrealistic in the internet age and maybe need to be looked at in countries that have them (including my own).

 

[Sweeper2000]

Not a popular opinion here but my opinion has changed on this case. I am back to my first pre-trial opinion, which is that she is a scapegoat. She deserves an appeal or retrial. JMO but I think she'll ultimately walk free, even if it takes a ridiculously long time.

Side notes, I'm pretty shocked by how hard it actually is to get an appeal in the UK. I come from somewhere where appeals are almost routine, so maybe I'm biased. But the UK system seems very old-fashioned. I'm also starting to think subjudice laws hurt everyone and are unrealistic in the internet age and maybe need to be looked at in countries that have them (including my own).

in all thats not a popular opinion any particular reasons why? I genuinely believe that a few doctors with something to hide could not dupe the system to this extent. its had too many layers of top level inspection going over every detail for anything to have been missed. any subpar med treatment would be known by now and that which is there is alredy known. Genuinely do not think they could get it passed to this extent.

weirdly enough im still at the start in regards to the "why"? nobody and nothing has provided any solid reason r fitting theory on why she did it. the same as the start.

 

[Eloise]

Its not just about individual doctors, or switching blame to someone else. its systemic beyond personal maliciousness or something else personal. In a robust system, a couple of doctors could bring a grievance about their perceptions of an incompetent nurse and it wouldn't devolve to what it has.

 

[SusanDonim]

from lucys boss i wonder so long to say this Lucy Letby’s former boss: If she was lying she deserved an Oscar

omg this thread is going to give me a stroke.
So ... actual ws followers of the trial thread are WELL AWARE of who Karen Rees is. And Alison Kelly.



From the link:

Rees added: “People say she’s not emotional. Trust me, she is emotional. I know that they say psychopaths are clever. But if she was acting she deserves an Oscar because she was so convincing. She was really hurt when she was told about the consultants’ allegations because she thought they were friends, not just colleagues, and she could not understand why they were doing this to her.”

So not because she thought, 'what the hell, you really think I harm BABIES?!?!?!'

But because 'poor Lucy' yet again. Hope she enjoys waking up each morning to her justice.

 

[SusanDonim]

Its not just about individual doctors, or switching blame to someone else. its systemic beyond personal maliciousness or something else personal. In a robust system, a couple of doctors could bring a grievance about their perceptions of an incompetent nurse and it wouldn't devolve to what it has.

the evidence does not support this theory.

 

[katydid23]

Its not just about individual doctors, or switching blame to someone else. its systemic beyond personal maliciousness or something else personal. In a robust system, a couple of doctors could bring a grievance about their perceptions of an incompetent nurse and it wouldn't devolve to what it has.

That does not explain her falsifying her medical logs. Nor does it explain her lying about the timeline in some of the deaths. Like in Baby E's case. She was caught lying about the timeline in court.

Her word against 2 parents, a midwife and the consultant, who had documents and phone records supporting their testimony.

This case was not about a couple of doctors with a personal grievance. This case was about a very sick woman who took advantage of a sloppy, poorly run hospital so she was able to murder several innocent babies and attempt to murder several more.

 

[mrC]

the the worlds top doctors say no murder a paholgist said no murder happend

 

[Ruthbullock]

RIGHT---she had told her husband AND the midwife about the baby bleeding before her 2nd visit. That is not inconsistent with her testimony.


NO, not inaccurate. The baby was bleeding slightly from his mouth at 9 pm. The bleeding at 11 pm was a massive internal hemmorage.

Letby told the mom that a doctor was already on his way to that the baby. THAT WAS A LIE. Letby did not contact a doctor until 10 pm.

How do your above comments make mom untruthful or incorrect?

NO, the above is not a discrepancy. Mom saw the bleeding at 9 pm. We know that because she called her husband, crying about it at 9:15 and the phone records corroborate that time.

How does any of what is said in the above paragraph nullify what Mom has testified to?

She expressed her milk about 8:30 pm, brought it to the room for a SCHEDULED 9 pm feeding.

THAT^^^^ is evidence right there, that she is correct with her timeline. She was told to feed her 2 sons at 9 pm, and she arrived at 9 to do so. And her call to her husband at 9:15 is more corroboration.

She then did what she was told and waited in her room, until the midwife called hours late and told her to come to the nursery quickly.

Please don't forget---Letby falsified her medical logs in order to try and pretend the 9 pm feed was cancelled. The Doctor called her out on that lie. He never cancelled that scheduled feeding. Letby wrote in her notes that he cancelled it. He denied doing so and showed that there was nothing in his medical log to show that he had any info about that child until Letby called about the collapse.

The link to the Thirwell inquiry has mums full interview and she was asked several times about the timings- Either the 9.00 bleed is false, or the time of death has been falsified according to mums own testimony- both can’t be true- as mums own timeline makes that impossible. Read her full interview, she does also get questioned about the phone call in the transcript. An alternative timeline is that time elapsed much, much slower than mum thinks (by hours, not minutes) due to what she was witnessing- but then you have to question the accuracy of the whole statement. All of this information though seems irrelevant in many ways, as LL was found guilty of murder due to injecting air, so the significant internal bleeding itself was not the cause of death in the trial.

 

[mrC]

heres a copy of the experts report International Expert Panel - Summary Report.pdf

 

[JosieJo]

The link to the Thirwell inquiry has mums full interview and she was asked several times about the timings- Either the 9.00 bleed is false, or the time of death has been falsified according to mums own testimony- both can’t be true- as mums own timeline makes that impossible. Read her full interview, she does also get questioned about the phone call in the transcript. An alternative timeline is that time elapsed much, much slower than mum thinks (by hours, not minutes) due to what she was witnessing- but then you have to question the accuracy of the whole statement. All of this information though seems irrelevant in many ways, as LL was found guilty of murder due to injecting air, so the significant internal bleeding itself was not the cause of death in the trial.

Could you put it simply with times how it doesn't fit as I read most of your Thirlwall link last night and couldn't find a major discrepancy from what I understand

In court ...proved bleeding was present 9pm when mum arrived...she was there around 10 min and left went back to ward to get phone to ring husband...that fit with phone records (from memory) 9.15 ish. It also fit exactly with the babies feed time

LL said she told Dr and did datix etc 9.40
Dr refuted this

DR Harkness said she contacted him around that 10.40 ish and then bled profusely at aprox 11pm ..said never seen a baby bleeding like that ever.

Just after 11pm spoke with consultant who didn't attend gave advice on plan

They phoned ward ...let's say around 11.10 to get parents...so correct..aprox 2 hours after she got back to ward 9.10pm

The baby had a further collapse later consultant asked to attend

Yes she says she witnessed Dr's working for 45min ...but that could just mean 45min straight for example after final collapse...as in 45 min full on CPR not total time Dr's were there.

I didn't get as far as time of death not fitting sorry ?? I don't see that ?

 

[JosieJo]

the the worlds top doctors say no murder a paholgist said no murder happend

No they said that's their opinion not that they didn't occur.
The pathologist have explained on oath their procedures may have produced a different diagnosis if it had been classified suspicious death

 

[mrC]

yes they gave their opinion an expert opinion expert opinions are evidence in law may have produced a different diagnosis does not mean they would

 

[Marantz4250b]

Not a popular opinion here but my opinion has changed on this case. I am back to my first pre-trial opinion, which is that she is a scapegoat. She deserves an appeal or retrial. JMO but I think she'll ultimately walk free, even if it takes a ridiculously long time.

Side notes, I'm pretty shocked by how hard it actually is to get an appeal in the UK. I come from somewhere where appeals are almost routine, so maybe I'm biased. But the UK system seems very old-fashioned. I'm also starting to think subjudice laws hurt everyone and are unrealistic in the internet age and maybe need to be looked at in countries that have them (including my own).

My opinion is that she's got next to zero chance of walking free. The weight of evidence against her is just too much.

What is she a scapegoat for, exactly? People claim this but no one has ever managed to state precisely why she's being pushed under the bus. Moreover, why her, specifically?

Similar to yourself, I started out firmly believing that she'd be found not guilty but the evidence clearly shows that she's guilty. She lied repeatedly, falsified records, stole hundreds of confidential documents and that's just a small part of it.

The appeals process is what it is. You need to show that you have reasonable grounds for an appeal. It's not realistic to hand out appeals based on ...I didn't do it.. that's what the trial is for. Appeals are intended to correct mistakes in the original trial.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Its not just about individual doctors, or switching blame to someone else. its systemic beyond personal maliciousness or something else personal. In a robust system, a couple of doctors could bring a grievance about their perceptions of an incompetent nurse and it wouldn't devolve to what it has.

The hospital management defended her very robustly, though. So much so that they even forced the doctors to apologise to her. If their motives were to throw her under the bus because of their failures then why defend her?

 

[Marantz4250b]

the the worlds top doctors say no murder a paholgist said no murder happend

Doctors, not murder investigators.

Saying what they said is massively unprofessional and an utter insult to everyone involved in the investigation. They should be ashamed, quite frankly. Their professional bodies should be having words, quite honestly.

 

[Marantz4250b]

The link to the Thirwell inquiry has mums full interview and she was asked several times about the timings- Either the 9.00 bleed is false, or the time of death has been falsified according to mums own testimony- both can’t be true- as mums own timeline makes that impossible. Read her full interview, she does also get questioned about the phone call in the transcript. An alternative timeline is that time elapsed much, much slower than mum thinks (by hours, not minutes) due to what she was witnessing- but then you have to question the accuracy of the whole statement. All of this information though seems irrelevant in many ways, as LL was found guilty of murder due to injecting air, so the significant internal bleeding itself was not the cause of death in the trial.

People need to remember here that the Thirlwell inquiry is not a rehash of the trial nor is it an inquiry into the evidence she was convicted on. It is not a criminal court and the evidence given before it is not given to the criminal standard.

It is inappropriate to start picking apart the original ten month trial based on what is said at the inquiry.

 

[May72031]

Not a popular opinion here but my opinion has changed on this case. I am back to my first pre-trial opinion, which is that she is a scapegoat. She deserves an appeal or retrial. JMO but I think she'll ultimately walk free, even if it takes a ridiculously long time.

I'm still waiting for someone - anyone - to put forth a "scapegoat" explanation that makes any sense.

 

[imstilla.grandma]

“People say she’s not emotional. Trust me, she is emotional,” Ms Rees said.

“I know that they say psychopaths are clever. But if she was acting she deserves an Oscar because she was so convincing.

“She was really hurt when she was told about the consultants’ allegations because she thought they were friends, not just colleagues, and she could not understand why they were doing this to her.”

Former head of nursing says she believes Letby is innocent | Nursing Times

Read about comments made by Lucy Letby's former head of nursing, Karen Rees, about why she believes Letby is innocent.

www.nursingtimes.net

 

[Ruthbullock]

Could you put it simply with times how it doesn't fit as I read most of your Thirlwall link last night and couldn't find a major discrepancy from what I understand

In court ...proved bleeding was present 9pm when mum arrived...she was there around 10 min and left went back to ward to get phone to ring husband...that fit with phone records (from memory) 9.15 ish. It also fit exactly with the babies feed time

LL said she told Dr and did datix etc 9.40
Dr refuted this

DR Harkness said she contacted him around that 10.40 ish and then bled profusely at aprox 11pm ..said never seen a baby bleeding like that ever.

Just after 11pm spoke with consultant who didn't attend gave advice on plan

They phoned ward ...let's say around 11.10 to get parents...so correct..aprox 2 hours after she got back to ward 9.10pm

The baby had a further collapse later consultant asked to attend

Yes she says she witnessed Dr's working for 45min ...but that could just mean 45min straight for example after final collapse...as in 45 min full on CPR not total time Dr's were there.

I didn't get as far as time of death not fitting sorry ?? I don't see that ?

The timelines for this baby, just seems to be all the over the place. The hours delay in contacting ( which also seems to be a matter never clarified fully) Dr Harkness doesnt quite fit the timeline portrayed either. I tried to access the witness statement for Dr Harkness- but this has now been removed from the Thirwall Inquiry webpage - which isnt helpful- and also makes me even more curious as to why that has happened. On that shift there should have been 5 nurses, we know there were at least 3, 2 doctors on the ward Dr Harkness and a trainee GP, whose last day it was, and the consultant on call- and noone looked in on the screaming baby apart from LL.

Dr Harkness arrived after being called by LL and witnessed two further significant bleeds:
In his evidence to the Inquiry Dr Harkness describesbeing asked to review Child E by Letby on the evening of3rd August 2015 as Child E had suffered a vomit withblood. Approximately half an hour later Child Edeveloped sudden substantial bleeding. Dr Harkness, whois now a consultant paediatrician, said:“I noted this to be unusual. This was then followedby a further episode of substantial bleeding which Icommented to be 'out of nowhere' and something I had notseen before or since.

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Thirlwall-Inquiry-Transcript-Opening-Statements-10-September-2024.pdf

In the final judgement, there were also 2 bleeds after DR Harkness arrived:
At around 21.30 on 3 August, Dr Harkness was called to see Baby E by the applicant, who was his designated nurse. He was shown a sample of bloody aspirate which was mainly stomach contents flecked with blood. While he was there the baby had a sudden and large vomit of fresh blood. He made a further note at 23.00 that there had been a further gastrointestinal blood loss. Baby E’s blood pressure however was stable and heart rate good. He was making a good respiratory effort. Dr Z, the on call consultant approved the plan that fluid loss should be replaced and Baby E should be intubated. Baby E then suffered a sudden deterioration at 23.40 when Dr Harkness was in the room and was getting ready to intubate him.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Letby-Final-Judgment-20240702.pdf

In the Datix- there were 2 bleeds recorded 9.40 and 11.00
22.10 hours, ST4 was asked to review the baby as he had had a gastric bleed at approximately 21.40 hours. He was alert, pink and well perfused with CRT <2. The baby's abdomen was soft, not distended and bowel sounds were heard. A diagnosis of GI bleed was made, ? cause. The plan was for IV ranitidine, add metronidazole (at risk of NEC) and for close observation. Consultant Paediatrician was updated and was happy with this plan. At 23.00 hours there was a further GI bleed and the baby desaturated to 70%. 13m1 of blood stained fluid was obtained from the NGT on free drainage. The baby's blood pressure remained stable (Mean BP 43) and he had a heart rate of 140 - 160, with SaO2 60 - 70% in 100% 19O2. The baby was making a good respiratory effort and was crying. The plan was to replace losses and for elective intubation with drugs. For CXR and AXR. To discuss the baby with surgeons once had x rays. Consultant Paediatrician updated and happy with plan. The baby had a sudden deterioration at 23.40 hours

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0000194_5.pdf