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

[mrC]

thats epert one person who is under gmb investigation another who has lost their medical licence and another one whose evidence was described as totally unraible by a judge

 

[marynnu]

Not necessarily. If something happens as you walk in, you won’t always have a scribe present until the full team arrives. JMO

On neonatal units the staff ARE the team! So someone is always given the job of recording everything that happens.

 

[OhDannyBoi]

This is just getting more and more into the realms of the unrealistic; I mean, yes, she probably could be but if that was a reasonable likelihood then surely the defence would have investigated that possibility?

Also, what diseases are out there which can be carried asymptomatically which, coincidentally (conveniently) only manifest in pre-term babies, only whilst the carrier is the only other human nearby and which often disappear leaving no trace when resus is performed?

With the greatest of respect, what you appear to be doing here is simply looking for random answers which might make her innocent rather than actually looking at the evidence we currently have and weighing that against guilt or innocence. Conformation bias, essentially.That is not the way that murder investigations are carried out.

And which didn't broadly cause collapses in the same time frame in other infants. She wasn't even assigned some of these babies so that, respectfully, completely nonsense hypothesis doesn't hold up.

 

[OhDannyBoi]

thats epert one person who is under gmb investigation another who has lost their medical licence and another one whose evidence was described as totally unraible by a judge

Please include sources, names and be accurate about your descriptions.

Dewi Evans did not give evidence to the judge who criticized him and it is a fact that what happened in this case is a private letter to a solicitor - which was not a report, nor meant to be a submission of opinion as evidence nor anything by a private letter - was submitted to the court by the solicitor with no warning or consent from Evans. He was not acting in an official capacity, his letter was a private correspondence that was misused and pretending that it reflects his work as a professional witness is not a theory that aligns with the facts. The court of appeals makes it clear that Evans' story has been corroborated to all involved and published a document that included their perspective on the matter.

 

[mrC]

basicaly the doctors are sating the knew a nurse was killing babys but did not do anything about for 2 years

the excuse that the hospital bosses wouldent let them call the police doesnt raally wash becouse you dont need the permission of your boss to report a crime

 

[mrC]

i have already posted the sources

 

[mrC]

from Nadine dorris This will be the first step towards Letby walking free: NADINE DORRIES

 

[OhDannyBoi]

from Nadine dorris This will be the first step towards Letby walking free: NADINE DORRIES

Nadine Dorries is not a reliable source on this case. She's actively involved in campaigning and spreading disinformation on this case along with David Davies.

The doctors did what they were supposed to do: report their concerns to the trust heads and allow them to make the referral. You do realize that if they didn't do that, the trust could say "no, we don't have any concerns this must be a false report" and then the doctors would be retaliated against, right?

They did the right thing and the trust heads still tried to have them all referred to the GMC on the way out.

 

[mrC]

here Bid to exclude evidence of prosecution medical expert was refused by judge

 

[Marantz4250b]

basicaly the doctors are sating the knew a nurse was killing babys but did not do anything about for 2 years

the excuse that the hospital bosses wouldent let them call the police doesnt raally wash becouse you dont need the permission of your boss to report a crime

In a perfect world where every employee is treated 100% fairly and managers and bosses are perfectly honest, dutiful and respectful you are completely correct.

We don't live in a perfect world, though, and when you have a group of managers threatening all sorts of nastiness up to and including destroying your career for not toeing the line then things are not quite as utopian as you make out.

Let's not forget that the managers actually forced the consultants into making a written apology to LL and even let her parents into the place so they could rant and wail in her defence.

 

[OhDannyBoi]

I'm new here and joined because of the Letby case. Bear with me.

I've been reading and writing about true crime for over fifty years and, like many amateur sleuths, there are certain controversial cases which are of particular interest to me. I am not necessarily interested in cut and dried cases unless perhaps they can be deemed infamous.

When I first discovered Letby had been arrested and charged with multiple murders, I wasn't really interested in the case because there didn't seem to be any controversy about it. It seemed to be an open and shut case. Wicked nurse killed multiple babies. I assumed there must be a huge amount of evidence against her and so when she was found guilty my initial reaction was "good".

Almost immediately, friends contacted me asking what I thought about the case and I reiterated my assumption that she was guilty. After all, hadn't she been caught red-handed dislodging a breathing tube? Hadn't she confessed in her diaries?

But then the first rumblings of disquiet over her guilt were heard and I felt a prickle of unease. I am now hugely invested in the case although I have not reached a conclusion yet.

So that's my background and this is my answer to JosieJo's question:

I don't think that her original Defence team ever believed she might be innocent. It doesn't matter how senior and well regarded your team is if they believe you are guilty. Your team, of course, wants to win, often at any cost so your guilt or innocence is neither here nor there to many lawyers. I've forty years experience working in the legal profession and seen first hand that it's often about the winning, not about guilt or innocence.

In the Letby case, I believe her team decided there was virtually no evidence which might have helped them win so they were really just going through the motions. Her team were a shambles so I am glad she's changed them. At least her new team are producing experts etc in the hope of overturning her conviction.

Just my two penn'orth, of course. Thank you for reading.

You don't seem to be familiar with the quality of representation Letby received. Let me assure you, she had among the best of the best as her representation. If there were evidence that could have exonerated her, they'd have tracked it down and used it. But several defence approached medical experts ended up flipping when there was a pretrial conference among the experts - only Mike Hall has publicly stated he didn't agree with all of the assessment only to make himself look like a fool when he claimed Sandie Bohin was retired (implying she was unqualified to work as an expert witness, despite currently working as a neonatologist) in a medical journal criticism.

 

[OhDannyBoi]

here Bid to exclude evidence of prosecution medical expert was refused by judge

You seem to prefer sources that have a clear bias, so it's not surprising that you are expressing views that are echoing those sources.

You should instead refer to primary sources: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Letby-Final-Judgment-20240702.pdf

That's the court of appeals judgment that rejected leave to appeal. The Independent leaves out that actual facts behind the criticism. Evans did not prepare a report, the reason the bid to exclude his evidence failed is outlined and the facts behind this are not in dispute. Perhaps you should reflect on why these sources you use hide facts from the reader.

 

[mrC]

theres a system for reporting suspicions of misconduct in the nhs a anonymously why the hell dident the doctors use it


a hospital boss cant sack only the gmc can do that.

 

[mrC]

bit from the court of appeal https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Letby-Final-Judgment-20240702.pdf

 

[OhDannyBoi]

As I made clear, Ian Harvey attempted to make Susan Gilby refer the consultants to the GMC for their conduct as he retired and ran off to France. Gilby has made it clear that Harvey wanted that off the record but requested she retaliate against them.

Why are you ignoring key bits of information?

 

[mrC]

they had nothing to fear from the gmc if they were telling the truth

 

[Furore]

In a perfect world where every employee is treated 100% fairly and managers and bosses are perfectly honest, dutiful and respectful you are completely correct.

We don't live in a perfect world, though, and when you have a group of managers threatening all sorts of nastiness up to and including destroying your career for not toeing the line then things are not quite as utopian as you make out.

Let's not forget that the managers actually forced the consultants into making a written apology to LL and even let her parents into the place so they could rant and wail in her defence.

Yeah realistically, this started with an investigation into increased deaths, with LL only later identified as common factor - I don’t think anyone initially felt she was murdering children. They did request she be removed from clinical duties though whilst an investigation sought.

I do think the public would understand the NHS better when they understand trusts are powerful entities who never ever want to draw the ire of police, press, legal wrangling, or any reputational damage whatsoever. The consultants perfectly escalated their concerns about LL professionally - the first step would never ever to be call the police, unless you actually witnessed a murder; whistleblowers get absolutely destroyed by trusts, time and again, they have complete control.

 

[Furore]

they had nothing to fear from the gmc if they were telling the truth

Again this is wrong, amongst doctors the GmC has low trust and is seen as punitive, and would not support them in a grievance process, without the trust or police believing letby guilty at that time…particularly those who do badly in gmc tribunals such as persons of colour BMA declares it has no confidence in the GMC

This was an intense escalation by the CEO/board and would have nuked any trust.

 

[mrC]

so the doctors have said that for 2 years they turned doesn't that make them accomplices normally that would lead to you geting charged as an acomplice

and i might point out that in law fear of getting the sack is not an excuse for failing to report a crime

 

[mrC]

are you honestly the gmc would ignore a credeble allegation of mass murder in a hearing theres no way they would dare