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

[Ruthbullock]

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.

The irony that your interpretation of my posts paints a picture of not guilty, yet I am not yet convinced of that myself. Maybe I should re read my posts to change my own opinion!

 

[May72031]

the thriwal inquerry pretty much confirmed the raw sewage problem

OK. Why are you obsessed with sewage? We've covered the sewage issue extensively, already, and it was dealt with in court.

Wait until you hear about the hundreds of sewage leaks in hospitals up and down the country...

 

[mrC]

from the telegraph Nurses’s support for Lucy Letby and concerns about hospital safety cut from public hearing

 

[Ruthbullock]

from the telegraph Nurses’s support for Lucy Letby and concerns about hospital safety cut from public hearing

Another witness statement- released and now withdrawn from the inquiry website

 

[mrC]

evedence from heather simpson https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0018064.pdf

 

[Marantz4250b]

The irony that your interpretation of my posts paints a picture of not guilty, yet I am not yet convinced of that myself. Maybe I should re read my posts to change my own opinion!

I really don't see how you arrive at that conclusion, tbh.

 

[Ruthbullock]

I really don't see how you arrive at that conclusion, tbh.

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.
ETA: I can literally answer you with your own comment.
You are too busy squashing people’s opinions, whilst sharing none of your own or backing it up with evidence.

 

[JosieJo]

The judge made it clear at the beginning the enquiry was not about Letbys Guilt ...so is it possible the reason the enquiry was not going to go down the road of allowing opinions on Letby ..hence certain details not being written into evidence...maybe also because they may be other pending charges ?

 

[mrC]

why as the inquiry removed evidence related to safety at the hospital you would think that would major concern for an inquiry such as that

 

[JosieJo]

why as the inquiry removed evidence related to safety at the hospital you would think that would major concern for an inquiry such as that

Without seeing exactly what has been removed or temporarily removed and "edited" from public view its impossible to say.

 

[JosieJo]

why as the inquiry removed evidence related to safety at the hospital you would think that would major concern for an inquiry such as that

Maybe it's limited to a particular remit based on the aim of this particular enquiry

 

[Tricia]

Hey Everyone,
Golden State Investigator Paul Holes is our first guest on Websleuths Ask Me Anything on Feb 27th at 8:00 PM Eastern.
CLICK HERE TO POST YOUR QUESTIONS

 

[katydid23]

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.

That is not true. The 9 pm bleed was not inconsistent with the time of death.

The 9 pm blood seen by mom was just a small amount that was on his upper lip and chin. It was not a heavy flow or a flood.

But 2 hours later he had a massive internal bleed. There is no reason to believe that both things cannot be true.

Mom's timeline is possible and is consistent with the facts.

Read her full interview, she does also get questioned about the phone call in the transcript.

I read the entire testimony---in fact, I read all the testimonies as I followed the case every day. The full trial.

YES, she does get questioned about the call as does her husband. And they were steadfast about what happened and the phone records support their testimony.

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.

NO, that alternate timeline is fiction created by the defense to try and cover for Letby's falsified medical notes.

The mother, the father and the mid wife and the attending doctor ALL had the same timeline as the parents.

THE ONLY TIMELINE THAT WAS INCONSISTENT WAS NURSE LETBY'S.

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.

I disagree with your interpretation of the evidence at trial. This information was not irrelevant. It is of utmost importance because it proved that Letby LIED about her timeline, LIED to the mother about having called a doctor already. She had not called a doctor.

She spent the next 45 minutes alone with the screaming bleeding baby before she sought medical help for him.

Then she falsified her medical notes to pretend as though the scheduled FEED was cancelled----and then set forth the bigger lie, accusing the mother of being dishonest about bringing milk to the nursery and seeing her baby bleeding.

How can anyone say those are not relevant facts in this murder trial?

Why would a nurse deny that a mother came to a scheduled feeding at 9 pm and try and put forth a lie about the doctor cancelling the feeding? There is no innocent explanation for that kind of deceit by Letby, IMO.

 

[katydid23]

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

OK....the above description has no specific times noted.
But doctor arrived AFTER baby had apparently vomited some blood.
30 minutes later , sudden substantial bleeding occurred.
Then later, even more substantial blood loss suddenly occurred.

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 final judgement, there were also 2 bleeds after DR Harkness arrived:"

OK, this^^^ is exactly what the previous section described, as summarised above.

-----at around 9:30 pm on Aug3rd, Letby called Dr H because of blood flecked vomit.

[Here is an example of Letby's lies, because she had told the mom that she had already called the doctor --app 8:45 pm---but Dr H testified he was called at around 9:30 pm. ]

-----@ around 9:45 pm he witnesses the baby vomiting blood

---@ around 11 pm he notes that there had been further blood loss , but vitals were still stable and strong--
The plan was to intubate and replace fluids

----@ 11:40 pm =sudden deterioration occurred

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

The above summary fits the same timeline as the 2 above descriptions.
---gastric bleed at approximately 21:40 [9:40 pm]

---@ 23 hours [11pm] there was a further GI bleed ---stable blood pressure and hart rate

---@23:40 [11:40pm] =sudden desaturation and collapse


I DO NOT SEE ANY DISCREPANCIES OR INCONSISTENCIES between these 3 summaries.

 

[katydid23]

Dr Harkness and Dr Woods were the 2 doctors on shift- moving between both the ward where mum was and the ward where the baby was, it strikes me as strange for them to even attempt to claim they were unaware of the situation and that LL delayed informing them was the cause for any delay in treatment.

Why is that strange? That is exactly what happened. They were unaware of the situation because Letby did not call for help from the doctor until after 9:30 pm.

They were not 'with mum' on the other ward. Mum had immediately gone to her room and called her husband. [phone records said call was around 9:20 pm]

Her husband stayed calm and convinced her that she was overreacting. He told her that they needed to trust the nurses and doctors and if there was a real problem they would be told about it.

When the husband testified at the trial he was so sad that he had admonished his wife for being so upset and suspicious. It was heartbreaking because she was right all along. Mothers Intuition.

So your theory that the doctors 'were with mum' in the other ward is not likely to be correct. Those attending doctors were busy answering calls for help. They had not been called by Nurse Letby yet so they had no reason to be 'with the mum' at that time.

If they were both on the other ward with mum- then they would be aware, as the midwife was, that mum was upset about the bleeding she witnessed,

Interesting that she mentioned that the midwife was already aware that mum was upset about the bleeding----interesting because in the trial, Letby claimed that mum was mistaken about the bleeding. Letby claimed there was no bleeding at 9 pm. Mum was either mistaken or lying according to Letby.

if they were down on the ward with the babies, then they would surely be checking the babies themselves regardless, especially if they heard one in such distress.

You have to follow the actual timeline. There was ONE doctor on the floor at that time. The other doctor was taking calls and giving advice by phone.

Dr H was the only Dr walking the halls during these 4 critical hours. He had no contact with the mum, and had not heard anything about baby E's distress until after 9:30 pm when Ltby finally called him.

These facts above are well proven in court. You cannot just say that the doctor would have known about this from mum or from hearing a crying baby or from the midwife etc because NONE of the above actually happened.

A full multi- year investigation, a 2 year trial, and then a huge multi-level, multi-agency review has taken place and facts are well established.

Baby E was about to be transferred out of the hospital and was considered in good health when his mum arrived with her breast milk to feed him that night. Four hours later he had lost 40% of his blood in a sudden, unexplained massive hemorrhage.

These comments are not about me disputing the role LL played or didn't play, but as I have always believed there were also serious alternative failings.

Sure, there were some hospital failings. And I think that was one main reason that Nurse Lucy was able to continue to get away with the evil deeds for so long. It's devastating.

 

[katydid23]

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

No babies were in contact with any sewage. And NONE of the babies in question had any infections from sewage related causes.

These babies were affected by a different kind of raw sewage, IMO.

 

[katydid23]

the thriwal inquerry pretty much confirmed the raw sewage problem

SO?

It was not an 'ongoing' situation. A pipe burst and they closed off that room and had the plumber IMMEDIATELY come and repair it. The plumber even testified as such.

No babies were in that room until after everything was repaired and sanitised. And none of the victims from the trial had any infectious diseases that could have been caused by sewage. They were all tested for that at the time.

 

[katydid23]

But she was found guilty of administering an air embolism- how does that feed in to the bleeding?

In severe cases of air embolism, internal damages can occur, which can result in massive blood loss.

 

[Charlot123]

All of it has been going on for ten years...since 2015. Between a convicted nurse, two doctors, and a chief trial expert who is now intensely criticized, the COCH, the NHS, it would seem that a tiny group is lost. I mean the parents of the deceased children. Whatever the reason for their kids' deaths, they are the victims either way.

Lucy/no Lucy, but I feel so sorry for these people. Someone, who is kinder than the whole system, has to sit down and talk to them. I suspect Lucy's case has the potential for dragging on for a long time, and i won't be surprised if some mid-range solution will be achieved. However, i can't imagine how the parents can get closure now. I strongly suspect they are going through flashbacks time and again.

Just think of it. About ten years ago, they were told that their tiny babies didn't make it. Huge grief, but as everyone, they had to cope. Moved on, probably. Then, in 2018, they were told that there was a murderer...a nurse. They had to go through the inquest, remember the nurse, their kids, their deaths... again. Horrible, right? Then the first trial in 2020 ending in a hung jury. Then a retrial in 2023. I assume that most of them were present. Lucy was convicted. You'd think one would have a closure. Next thing, Dr. Breary and Dr. Jay began accusing the NHS culture. Still very loud, and sorry, serving themselves, not the parents.

And now with the appeal, the worst is coming. There was one culprit, Lucy. Now the parents hear about a nosocomial infection, they hear that one doctor can't intubate properly, and the other champion pierced the neonate's liver, and these were their kids. I know we may be split over LL's guilt. However, it was the overzealousness of Drs. Breary, Jay and Evans that is now turning against them. Sorry, but these specialists should have at least placed a courtesy call to Dr. Shoo Lee. Ask his professional opinion. They didn't. They just cited his article. And now dr. Shoo Lee ended up visiting UK, himself. His and his expert group's report is not official. But, it can't be neglected. Just look at his credentials. https://www.cnf-fnc.ca/about/shoo-lee

"The newborns either died of natural causes or from bad medical care", he says. And this is absolutely damning to the COCH. And how does it feel for the parents to hear it?

Experts question medical evidence that led to murder conviction of British nurse

A panel of expects is disputing the medical evidence used to convict British nurse Lucy Letby of murdering seven newborns and trying to kill seven others

abcnews.go.com

 

[katydid23]

"The newborns either died of natural causes or from bad medical care", he says. And this is absolutely damning to the COCH. And how does it feel for the parents to hear it?

I'm sorry, but if the above ^^^statement was true, there'd be no reason for Nurse Letby to have falsified her medical notes and lied about the timeline in Baby E's case.

Dr Shoo-Lee does not dissuade me from believing in Nurse Letby's GUILT.

These medical arguments are not cut and dry/black and white. Even the smartest most experienced doctors do not totally agree about medical cases. That's why people get 2nd and 3rd opinions .

This case cannot be decided by the duelling of two groups of doctors. MURDER cases are built upon many factors.

The trial took many things into account. It was not just the medical reports. It was a combination of many things that as a whole, proved her guilt.

These doctors did not watch the trial and take all of the evidence into account.