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

[shesfixingherhair]

Seems to me like she had a very busy and fulfilled life. The one thing that seemed to be missing - and I think it was the case all her life - is a boyfriend/husband/partner. I don't know why that is but I'm sure she could have got that if she chose to.

I’ll take this a step further and say she chose instead to put that energy into an affair with a married man — something she knew could never really go anywhere.

I wouldn’t think it was so strange if it didn’t seem to be her ONLY romantic relationship. You’re in your 20s, the dating apps are at their peak, and this is all you have to show for it? A married weasel who offers candy and the use of his sensible dadmobile? Something’s not adding up.

 

[Kemug]

I’ll take this a step further and say she chose instead to put that energy into an affair with a married man — something she knew could never really go anywhere.

I wouldn’t think it was so strange if it didn’t seem to be her ONLY romantic relationship. You’re in your 20s, the dating apps are

Agree with this but my earlier point re LL being the only person who knows and can throw any light on who and what she is and why she did what she did still stands. In that, should she ever, in time, decide to unload - not to confess obviously, just to unload, to talk - only then could the beginnings of any informed assessments or conclusions be made about her. Which is the point I was responding to regarding speculation about her motivation.

She remains the only person that can ever throw any type of clear light on her.

Everything else in the interim and in the absence of that happening will always be just speculative noise.

Trouble is, whatever LL may explain, we can't believe a word of it!

 

[Marantz4250b]

Agree with this but my earlier point re LL being the only person who knows and can throw any light on who and what she is and why she did what she did still stands. In that, should she ever, in time, decide to unload - not to confess obviously, just to unload, to talk - only then could the beginnings of any informed assessments or conclusions be made about her. Which is the point I was responding to regarding speculation about her motivation.

She remains the only person that can ever throw any type of clear light on her.

Everything else in the interim and in the absence of that happening will always be just speculative noise.

As before, though; I am not at all convinced that she has even the vaguest clue about why she did it or what type of person she actually is. None at all.

I don't think she'll confess, either.

Tbh, I'm surprised that we haven't heard more coming out at the public inquiry yet about her earlier life before nursing and uni and suchlike. Maybe that's to come but maybe there really isn't anything. I'm still of the opinion that there's something in her medical history but I doubt we'll hear anything about that.

 

[Marantz4250b]

She will deny this until the day she dies.

Yes!

 

[Marantz4250b]

I’ll take this a step further and say she chose instead to put that energy into an affair with a married man — something she knew could never really go anywhere.

I wouldn’t think it was so strange if it didn’t seem to be her ONLY romantic relationship. You’re in your 20s, the dating apps are at their peak, and this is all you have to show for it? A married weasel who offers candy and the use of his sensible dadmobile? Something’s not adding up.

Agreed that it's weird but, as previously, I'm not convinced that it ever involved sex. I get the distinct impression that she has some hang-ups about that which is why we haven't heard even a whisper of any previous relationships. Doc Choc, imo, doesn't seem to have the stones to cheat, and I think she saw him as a safe bet for an "affair", and he the same of her.

I think that any affair was in their minds only.

Might be wrong but we'll probably never know.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Trouble is, whatever LL may explain, we can't believe a word of it!

And this is the major problem. The one thing that always stands out to me is her "difficult" birth which she claims was one of the reasons for going into nursing.

Now, that may well be the case but the sole source for that "fact" is Lucy Letby and she's a known liar and convicted serial child murderer.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Anyone explain this?

"A new audit of baby deaths at Lucy Letby's hospital has found that many of the most rapid deteriorations took place when she was not on duty, The Mail on Sunday can reveal."

Redirect Notice

Is that purely relevant to deteriorations rather than the actual deaths and immediately preceeding events? Is there no medical opinions on them? I always read the evidence as being the deteriorations were inexplicable. The prosecutions main theory was that she was always around when they collapsed and were otherwise healthy and stable. Or is it that these deteriorations aren't collapses the way we saw? They are just dips in blood oxygen, maybe dips in heart rate etc? Haven't seen which babies these were with either have we?

 

[Marantz4250b]

Anyone explain this?

"A new audit of baby deaths at Lucy Letby's hospital has found that many of the most rapid deteriorations took place when she was not on duty, The Mail on Sunday can reveal."

Redirect Notice

Is that purely relevant to deteriorations rather than the actual deaths and immediately preceeding events? Is there no medical opinions on them? I always read the evidence as being the deteriorations were inexplicable. The prosecutions main theory was that she was always around when they collapsed and were otherwise healthy and stable. Or is it that these deteriorations aren't collapses the way we saw? They are just dips in blood oxygen, maybe dips in heart rate etc? Haven't seen which babies these were with either have we?

The whole thrust of that premiss, though, is getting back to the arguments along the lines of ...she couldn't have done it because the other incidents weren't included in the "statistics" presented in her trial...

She wasn't convicted on "statistics", though. She was convicted on mainly medical evidence. It's irrelevant how many other deaths and collapses there were because she wasn't charged with them. The whole point of the infamous chart was to demonstrate that she was on duty at the relevant times related to the incidents she was charged with. The chart wasn't a statistical chart - it was merely a table of facts placing her in the vicinity of the incidents. A chart of coinciding facts and the jury was entitled to place as much, or as little, weight on that as they saw fit.

 

[Sweeper2000]

The whole thrust of that premiss, though, is getting back to the arguments along the lines of ...she couldn't have done it because the other incidents weren't included in the "statistics" presented in her trial...

She wasn't convicted on "statistics", though. She was convicted on mainly medical evidence. It's irrelevant how many other deaths and collapses there were because she wasn't charged with them. The whole point of the infamous chart was to demonstrate that she was on duty at the relevant times related to the incidents she was charged with. The chart wasn't a statistical chart - it was merely a table of facts placing her in the vicinity of the incidents. A chart of coinciding facts and the jury was entitled to place as much, or as little, weight on that as they saw fit.

I hate that article it's failed dismally to explain any details about these "deteriorations" and also failed to explain any relevancy to the trial and its results.

I'm looking at it more through the lens of its just casting doubt on the health of the babies. I swear it doesn't even mention if any of these new deteriorations are relevant to babies in teh charges. It's meaningless ATM.

 

[Officer Dibble]

Has this been shared? TV's doctor Ravi tells Lucy Letby inquiry he lies awake at night

 

[Sweeper2000]

Has this been shared? TV's doctor Ravi tells Lucy Letby inquiry he lies awake at night

They all said to same in the original trial but No that's fresh as is this.

Lucy Letby told a consultant paediatrician she was coming back to the Countess of Chester Hospital’s neonatal unit "whether you liked it or not", a public inquiry has heard.

Dr Ravi Jayaram said Letby made the comment in a "bizarre" meeting in late March 2017, just days before he understood NHS bosses had planned her return to the unit under supervision.

Lucy Letby told consultant she would 'come back' to neonatal unit

A consultant recalls a "bizarre" meeting in which he says Lucy Letby vowed to return to their unit.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Sweeper2000]

Really damning article about Ian Harvey. This is quite obviously what happened. In another article the lady asked to review the cases said the situation was described as a breakdown in working relationships and Harvey did not describe their actual fears. She also says that letby was described as being scapegoated by the docs. She initially thought that many of the cases could be explained and had allot of suboptimal care but these conclusions were reached with partial information and none from the docs who treated teh babies. She didn't hear that the docs thought these babies were mostly doing ok and then acute and sometimes instant decline. Ian Harvey said absolutely nothing about what the consultants thought about these babies and only gave this lady the medical notes to review. Someone tell me Harvey is going to have to xplain himself please? He's going to have to answer.

"Peter Skelton KC, representing seven of the families of Letby’s victims, asked Hawdon whether she felt misled by Harvey, the medical director.
She replied: “I now feel MISLED" I can’t say who misled me but I feel misled. And, as I have said before, if those details had been made available to me the process I would have followed would have been very different.”

Neonatal expert ‘feels misled’ over involvement in Lucy Letby reviews

Doctor involved in review of deaths and collapses at hospital says she was not ‘adequately briefed’

www.theguardian.com

 

[Highlandspring]

Really damning article about Ian Harvey. This is quite obviously what happened. In another article the lady asked to review the cases said the situation was described as a breakdown in working relationships and Harvey did not describe their actual fears. She also says that letby was described as being scapegoated by the docs. She initially thought that many of the cases could be explained and had allot of suboptimal care but these conclusions were reached with partial information and none from the docs who treated teh babies. She didn't hear that the docs thought these babies were mostly doing ok and then acute and sometimes instant decline. Ian Harvey said absolutely nothing about what the consultants thought about these babies and only gave this lady the medical notes to review. Someone tell me Harvey is going to have to xplain himself please? He's going to have to answer.

"Peter Skelton KC, representing seven of the families of Letby’s victims, asked Hawdon whether she felt misled by Harvey, the medical director.
She replied: “I now feel MISLED" I can’t say who misled me but I feel misled. And, as I have said before, if those details had been made available to me the process I would have followed would have been very different.”

Neonatal expert ‘feels misled’ over involvement in Lucy Letby reviews

Doctor involved in review of deaths and collapses at hospital says she was not ‘adequately briefed’

www.theguardian.com

Yes naturally Harvey's gonna have to explain himself, and it shouldn't be that long now. But best if he and Chambers are last so all the many Inq witnesses' accusations/buck passings/bus mishaps, lol, have piled up in his lap. Surely he'll need best part of a week to go through them all?! Depends how much wriggling he does I guess.

 

[mickey2942]

This is particularly interesting to follow if you work in a hospital setting. I wonder how many people who brought up suspicions, were subsequently terminated? Anyone who brings up problems, is automatically "targeted" as "The Problem".

As noted by a doctor, he was "afraid" to say anything. Wow. Dr. Ravi Jayaram. He wishes he had spoken up sooner.

 

[mrC]

from the guardian Judge denies he was asked to give advice about Letby because he is a Freemason

 

[Charlot123]

This case is very discomforting. But here is an article - just one of many, I am sure.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384043212_How_unusual_was_the_spike_in_neonatal_deaths_when_Lucy_Letby_was_working

If it is hard to subscribe to Research Gate, please let me know. I would have to think of the way to attach a PDF.

Statistically, the author comes to the conclusion that such an anomalous year at COCH NICU was not anomalous at all if compared with other hospitals during the same time.

Now, this is the first statistical study I have read; it could be flawed, or good. I wonder why no such studies before the trial?

What i was thinking is that such a complex court cases can not be decided on without detailed statistical analysis.

The material has been collected greatly. It is not a weak case. The investigators are smart.

And yet.. it starts subjectively. Dr. R.J.'s intuition... But it didn't need to stay subjective as hospital morbidity and mortality were always subject of statistics. This specialty looks at everything, the budgeting, the nurse-to-patient ratio, the doctor-to-patient ratio, the experience of the doctors and nurses, the conditions, the morbidity/mortality numbers.

Statistics allows to run analysis while controlling for different factors. For example: not a single death since LL was removed. But wasn't the NICU upgraded from level 2 to level 1? That's apples and oranges.
Statistic can control for many variables.

It is not about LL. I am surprised that the very case that had to be subjected to wide statistical analysis was not.

 

[Parker Knoll]

This wasn’t a case of statistics though.

 

[Charlot123]

This wasn’t a case of statistics though.

This whole case lodges on statistics as it starts with unexplained rise in NICU deaths in 2014-2015. And later, the hospital stated that after LL was moved from the unit, no other kids died. This is how the case started. It is nothing but statistics, only poor one, as it omits one important factor: significant decrease in unit complexity, from level 2 (27 weeks or above or any baby needing a ventilator) to level 1 (above 32 weeks). It is a huge change. Any case of hospital mortality is statistics, you can't avoid it. In fact, it is great because it makes cases more objective.

 

[windrower]

This case is very discomforting. But here is an article - just one of many, I am sure.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384043212_How_unusual_was_the_spike_in_neonatal_deaths_when_Lucy_Letby_was_working

If it is hard to subscribe to Research Gate, please let me know. I would have to think of the way to attach a PDF.

Statistically, the author comes to the conclusion that such an anomalous year at COCH NICU was not anomalous at all if compared with other hospitals during the same time.

Now, this is the first statistical study I have read; it could be flawed, or good. I wonder why no such studies before the trial?

What i was thinking is that such a complex court cases can not be decided on without detailed statistical analysis.

The material has been collected greatly. It is not a weak case. The investigators are smart.

And yet.. it starts subjectively. Dr. R.J.'s intuition... But it didn't need to stay subjective as hospital morbidity and mortality were always subject of statistics. This specialty looks at everything, the budgeting, the nurse-to-patient ratio, the doctor-to-patient ratio, the experience of the doctors and nurses, the conditions, the morbidity/mortality numbers.

Statistics allows to run analysis while controlling for different factors. For example: not a single death since LL was removed. But wasn't the NICU upgraded from level 2 to level 1? That's apples and oranges.
Statistic can control for many variables.

It is not about LL. I am surprised that the very case that had to be subjected to wide statistical analysis was not.

bbm

How in the world would hospital statistics account for the anomaly of an murderous nurse. LL was convicted of murders because of many factors proving her guilt.

And she got away with murders she committed because they couldn’t prove it in court. That does not make her innocent of those crimes.

This wasn’t a case of statistics though.

Right. It was a case of a murderous nurse. A ghastly, murderous nurse.

 

[ColourPurple]

This whole case lodges on statistics as it starts with unexplained rise in NICU deaths in 2014-2015. And later, the hospital stated that after LL was moved from the unit, no other kids died. This is how the case started. It is nothing but statistics, only poor one, as it omits one important factor: significant decrease in unit complexity, from level 2 (27 weeks or above or any baby needing a ventilator) to level 1 (above 32 weeks). It is a huge change. Any case of hospital mortality is statistics, you can't avoid it. In fact, it is great because it makes cases more objective.

The statisticians seem incapable of looking at the babies as individuals. This was not a case of oh there’s been an unexpected increase in deaths therefore there must’ve been murders and we’re gonna blame a nurse for them. There is a difference between an “unexpected increase in overall deaths” and an “increase in unexpected and unexplained deaths”.

So it’s not that the suspicious part was just that the overall number of deaths increased unexpectedly. For example you could have had a situation where that happened but each of the individual deaths was expected and easily explained.

In this case yes there was an unexpected rise in overall deaths but more importantly the individual deaths were all unexpected and/or unexplained. They suddenly had babies who were not expected to die, collapsing and dying, and doctors couldn’t explain why it had happened. There were patterns of these collapses happening when the babies designated nurse had just gone on a break, or their parents had just left to get food or some sleep, or on special occasions like the babies 100 day anniversary or their due date. Two of the babies who had unexpected collapses had twins who were later found to have been poisoned with insulin around the same time as their collapses.

The prosecution didn’t just say oh look there were more deaths than would be expected that year and as LL was on shift for every baby she must’ve murdered them. They showed why each death was also unexpected and/or unexplained and showed how LL had been cotside even when she denied she had been. They showed her falsifying records, contradicting the statements of other staff and parents. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. I’d advise watching some of CS2Cs videos, particularly the transcripts of her police interviews and when she took the stand.

And yes the hospital downgraded to level 1 around the time they took her off the ward but several of the babies who were attacked and murdered would still have been admitted under the level 1 criteria!