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

[joltz]

View attachment 564700
I have only looked in depth ( and limited at that to the evidence available) at child e- but how deep has Dr H been investigated

That's from Eireen Powell, one of Letbys biggest fans and a Dr hater. She turned the concerns about Letby into a Drs Vs Nurses argument because she couldnt see further than her own personal grievances. I would not be surprised to see corporate manslaughter charges in future. She enabled Letby and belittled the concerns and told the management there was nothing happening.

 

[joltz]

There was always more than one nurse on the ward, plus doctors and consultants on call. The immediate life saving interventions are down to people who are on site. Sounds dramatic- but how many near misses were investigated and resolved. Im unconvinced the doctors had the medical expertise to deal with anything slightly off textbook.

I guess they must have forgotten how to do their jobs that they had been doing for decades but only in 2015-2016 then.

 

[mrC]

i find it hard to belive that raw sewage would have no affect on the health of a premature baby

 

[Ruthbullock]

That's from Eireen Powell, one of Letbys biggest fans and a Dr hater. She turned the concerns about Letby into a Drs Vs Nurses argument because she couldnt see further than her own personal grievances. I would not be surprised to see corporate manslaughter charges in future. She enabled Letby and belittled the concerns and told the management there was nothing happening.

The evidence I have looked at is not related to Eileen Powell.

 

[Ruthbullock]

That's from Eireen Powell, one of Letbys biggest fans and a Dr hater. She turned the concerns about Letby into a Drs Vs Nurses argument because she couldnt see further than her own personal grievances. I would not be surprised to see corporate manslaughter charges in future. She enabled Letby and belittled the concerns and told the management there was nothing happening.

Please feel free to share your evidence of this, as I said I haven’t seen her name mentioned in anything I have looked at. If you feel strongly she is manipulating the facts and they have been lost it would be appreciated to share again.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Why is it inappropriate? A trial is selected evidence used to argue either side to consolidate their points. The inquiry is looking at the bigger picture, and discussed evidence at the trial alongside information and statements not presented at the trial. Until I started looking through the inquiry statements, I did not realise the police originally refused to proceed with the matter as there was not enough evidence and it wouldn't meet the threshold.

ETA: I'm still not at the point I feel LL should be cleared, but I do worry that some of her convictions did not account for all the evidence about other failings in the department. It also concerns me as a parent that even if I was 100% assured she was guilty of everything and there was a smoking gun for conviction in each case- something else was seriously wrong with the whole department and that could surely happen again unless it is nit picked and hashed over to the point that some clarity is actually gained. Next time it may not be a serial killer, just someone really poor at their job under the same processes and same supervisors- but the outcome would be just as tragic for the parents.

It's inappropriate because it's not a criminal trial, the "evidence", as it is, is not presented to prove someone's guilt to a criminal standard.

The terms of reference of the inquiry is to determine how a serial murderer managed to get away with multiple killings right under the noses of hospital staff and management and how these things might be prevented in future. The foundation of the whole inquiry is that LL is guilty - as the courts have properly determined her to be.

It's not appropriate to pick apart specific bits of the evidence because, for a start, its admissibility is not to the criminal standard because it's not a trial. It's not even a civil trial which has looser rules of evidence and a lower burden of proof. The inquiry is looking at how the hospital and its management behaved, not whether she is guilty. That has already been decided.

They are looking at how the Trust behaved, not LL. The evidence and statements given by the witnesses need only be of a general nature and they won't be getting torn apart as a barrister would do in a criminal trial.

 

[May72031]

i find it hard to belive that raw sewage would have no affect on the health of a premature baby

Do you have any evidence that raw sewage had any effect on any babies?

I believe the issue of "raw sewage" was discussed at the trial, and dealt with. The defence even brought a plumber in as her only defence expert! They provided no evidence that any raw sewage effected the health of any babies.

 

[Ruthbullock]

It's inappropriate because it's not a criminal trial, the "evidence", as it is, is not presented to prove someone's guilt to a criminal standard.

The terms of reference of the inquiry is to determine how a serial murderer managed to get away with multiple killings right under the noses of hospital staff and management and how these things might be prevented in future. The foundation of the whole inquiry is that LL is guilty - as the courts have properly determined her to be.

It's not appropriate to pick apart specific bits of the evidence because, for a start, its admissibility is not to the criminal standard because it's not a trial. It's not even a civil trial which has looser rules of evidence and a lower burden of proof. The inquiry is looking at how the hospital and its management behaved, not whether she is guilty. That has already been decided.

They are looking at how the Trust behaved, not LL. The evidence and statements given by the witnesses need only be of a general nature and they won't be getting torn apart as a barrister would do in a criminal trial.

Which is what I have been doing- so why are you then saying it’s inappropriate?

 

[Sweeper2000]

Do you have any evidence that raw sewage had any effect on any babies?

I believe the issue of "raw sewage" was discussed at the trial, and dealt with. The defence even brought a plumber in as her only defence expert! They provided no evidence that any raw sewage effected the health of any babies.

or any evidence of "massive hospital failings" and thats mr myers words.

 

[May72031]

or any evidence of "massive hospital failings" and thats mr myers words.

What "massive hospital failings" are you talking about? The management not listening to the concerns of doctors?

 

[mrC]

i think sewage leaking from a ceiling is a pretty major failing

 

[Sweeper2000]

What "massive hospital failings" are you talking about? The management not listening to the concerns of doctors?

was a reference to mr myers unsubstantiated claims of them, supporting your statement about raw sewage not causing qny problems.

 

[May72031]

i think sewage leaking from a ceiling is a pretty major failing

Well, that's a "major failing" in countless hospitals.
Hundreds of sewage leaks in England’s hospitals

Why are you focused on sewage?

 

[Marantz4250b]

Please feel free to share your evidence of this, as I said I haven’t seen her name mentioned in anything I have looked at. If you feel strongly she is manipulating the facts and they have been lost it would be appreciated to share again.

She was mentioned over and over during the trial. And, yes, as has been mentioned many times over the months, she was one of LL's most fervent supporters!

 

[Marantz4250b]

i find it hard to belive that raw sewage would have no affect on the health of a premature baby

No one has ever produced any evidence to demonstrate any hard it caused to anyone, as far as I recall.

If her defence is saying that sewage caused the deaths they need to say by what mechanism, specifically.

Do you have evidence of same?

 

[Ruthbullock]

She was mentioned over and over during the trial. And, yes, as has been mentioned many times over the months, she was one of LL's most fervent supporters!

That’s great that she got mentioned over and over again- feel free to share why you feel this impacted the trial. As far as I can see she was a supporter, but LL was still found guilty

 

[Marantz4250b]

Which is what I have been doing- so why are you then saying it’s inappropriate?

Because you are implying that because the statements given at the inquiry seem to differ from evidence in the trial - in your opinion - it suggests that her convictions are questionable.

Her guilt is not at issue for this inquiry and the evidence presented to it is nothing to do with her criminal liability or lack of same.

 

[mrC]

the thriwal inquerry pretty much confirmed the raw sewage problem

 

[Marantz4250b]

i think sewage leaking from a ceiling is a pretty major failing

No one is denying that, as far as anyone can detrmine.

What is your point, though? Genuine question.

 

[Marantz4250b]

the thriwal inquerry pretty much confirmed the raw sewage problem

No one is denying it.

Of what relevance is it, though?