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

[Charlot123]

you have been REPEATABLY TOLD that their was NO evidence of infection causing any deaths. The 'sewage' evidence was in fact PITIFUL and actually made me wonder whether Letby had deliberately blocked a sink to try to blame stuff on.

I believe you are wrong here. Of the babies, one, as the independent panel of experts believes, died from infection caused by S.maltophilia. Maybe the esteemed experts are wrong.

However, the fact stays: the baby’s ETT was swabbed when the baby was alive. The culture showed that an opportunistic pathogen (a microbe) was growing in the baby’s lungs. The consulting doctor paid no attention to it and didn’t prescribe antibiotics. It all happened when the baby was alive. So, the doctors, obviously did miss an infection in the baby who later died. Her death was blamed on Lucy. The experts believe it was preventable.

This is all in the hospital records from those years.

 

[Moll]

RSBM

This isn't what happened.

Letby's first trial started in 2022 and ended in 2023 with 14 convictions.

She was retried on one count for baby K in 2024 and was convicted, bringing the total to 15.

Thanks for putting the record straight on these important facts, Tortoise. There's enough in contention without rewriting history on the trial dates!

 

[Charlot123]

Again, least of all I want to start throwing accusations. Mistakes happen in any busy unit.

It is obvious that the unit was ill-equipped to be level II. The fault IMHO, lies with both the administration of the COHS and the NICU doctors who thought they could, but didn’t have the knowledge. Obviously, there was no ill intent in it.

I don’t know what to think of Lucy’s role. I think that since there are other, more plausible, explanations for these deaths, than murder, it is logical to stick to the alternative explanations.

JMO: I hope that Lucy will be released. It might be a “never resolved case”, and I doubt that she can work in medicine just because of the public’s reaction to her. But since there is a chance she is innocent, she at least should have the right to spend her only life not in prison.

There are cases, well-known ones, where the accused were convicted, served some time and then were let go. Some believe they are innocent; for others, there is still a cloud of suspicion hanging over their heads. You and I may feel differently about such cases. They are very complex, and at least in one, the accused were lying in the beginning. Served the time for lying, and were let go. I believe it is better this way because there is a high chance that these people are innocent, and lied out of fear.

Lastly, NHS is a good and most important, free system. It seems that not a single organization has fully restored after COVID, and how to function better now is a hard question. I think that maybe, the one truly good thing in the independent experts coming, on own time and money, is to use their knowledge and understand how to improve organization of at least one unit. After all, these people are motivated by the wish to help.

 

[Charlot123]

RSBM

This isn't what happened.

Letby's first trial started in 2022 and ended in 2023 with 14 convictions.

She was retried on one count for baby K in 2024 and was convicted, bringing the total to 15.

You are right in it, and it was my mistake.

 

[Ruthbullock]

The summary of the outcomes- typical that I fell back across them when not looking for them

Nurse Lucy Letby found guilty of seven baby murders and seven attempted murders

Lucy Letby, a former Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal nurse, has been found guilty of murdering and poisoning babies between June 2015 and June…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[JosieJo]

It very easy to get drawn in by all the PR from the defence at the moment.
There was a huge amount of evidence put forward by the prosecution that's easy to forget ...I realised that myself yesterday listening to a court transcript of baby E for just 20 min ..let alone the whole trial.

Again in my opinion it was covered by the defence that the cause of death were not 100% black and white ....didn't the judge say something to the jury similar to ...you don't have to know exactly how the babies died just that there was foul play by letby...or something similar????

The jury knew the medical evidence was contentious in some of the cases.
The Defence covered possibilities of infections etc

 

[Ruthbullock]

It very easy to get drawn in by all the PR from the defence at the moment.
There was a huge amount of evidence put forward by the prosecution that's easy to forget ...I realised that myself yesterday listening to a court transcript of baby E for just 20 min ..let alone the whole trial.

Again in my opinion it was covered by the defence that the cause of death were not 100% black and white ....didn't the judge say something to the jury similar to ...you don't have to know exactly how the babies died just that there was foul play by letby...or something similar????

The jury knew the medical evidence was contentious in some of the cases.
The Defence covered possibilities of infections etc

It’s not just the noise from the defence that is leading to such debate. LL was found guilty of some of the deaths, there was and still is ongoing investigation into other deaths or near misses. There were babies she was found not guilty of. The inquiry itself is looking into other factors. Which ever side of the fence you sit on, or if your getting a sore backside from being completely on the fence, like myself- there are still unanswered questions, there are still other aspects to be investigated and discussed and some of these feed into evidence presented at trial. Whilst the sewage (and I haven’t really delved into that aspect at all) is contentious to some, we still don’t know if it was a cause for other deaths and infections on the unit at that time- we only know the babies discussed in the trial (and we know they are looking into more). At this point in time the police investigation is ongoing, an inquiry is on going, I’m sure there are other aspects being looked into that we are oblivious to as well. I think most of us on here value the opinions from both camps, appreciate the clarity sometimes when we are mistaken and corrected, I know I do.

 

[Charlot123]

"Benjamin Myers KC, for Letby, told the court that the attempted murder charge should have “stayed” as an “abuse of process” due to “overwhelming and irremediable prejudice” caused by media coverage of her first trial.


Benjamin Myers KC

He said: “The learned judge was wrong to reject the application made by the defence at the outset of the trial to stay the indictment as an abuse of process.”

[...]

Letby, formerly of Hereford, watched the hearing via a video link from HMP Bronzefield, wearing a green dress.

[...]

The hearing before Lord Justice William Davis, Lord Justice Jeremy Baker and Mrs Justice McGowan, which is expected to conclude on Thursday, continues."

Letby retrial ‘should not have gone ahead due to overwhelming prejudice’

Letby, 34, was sentenced to 15 whole life orders for her crimes.

www.milfordmercury.co.uk

He is right in that no media source should use the words "nurse murderer" or "killer nurse" before, or even during, the trial. This is why defamation lawsuits happen. The media was totally out of control.

The true problem, the way I see it, is that this case had all the markings of being the "case of projections" to start with. It is easy to identify oneself with all sides here. So what I am seeing now is the tables already being turned, and lots of accusations being thrown the other way. Which is also not right. The doctors put in long hours, they work hard, they are answerable with their licenses. So I don't want the opposite side to be accused without a reason.

I sometimes wonder if several things contributed to increased mortality:

- first, I don't know when they upgraded to level II, but usually it takes 3-4 years for the effects of the wrong decision to be seen. Maybe this?

- also, maybe, just maybe, a very good doctor or a couple left the NICU. Maybe several new young doctors just came in? Or perhaps they were so understaffed that they heavily relied on interns? More than before?

- also, it could be the issue of several good OBGYNs retiring and the deliveries getting more complicated, hence, kids being in worse shapes to start with.

- Lots of factors not directly related to NICU could have contributed.

 

[Charlot123]

It very easy to get drawn in by all the PR from the defence at the moment.
There was a huge amount of evidence put forward by the prosecution that's easy to forget ...I realised that myself yesterday listening to a court transcript of baby E for just 20 min ..let alone the whole trial.

Again in my opinion it was covered by the defence that the cause of death were not 100% black and white ....didn't the judge say something to the jury similar to ...you don't have to know exactly how the babies died just that there was foul play by letby...or something similar????

The jury knew the medical evidence was contentious in some of the cases.
The Defence covered possibilities of infections etc

The prosecution are not doctors. They can examine situation only to a certain degree.

It was the main medical expert for the prosecution who did a poor job. And he is to be scrutinized.

After all, the doctors' work is associated with a lot of risk. Even with that poor intubation that the dr. gets so much flak for now - it surely was a mistake, nothing intentional. And maybe, being short-staffed, these doctors were under a lot of stress, didn't sleep well, felt too nervous, too intense, too suspicious? It is a hard work.

But that guy, Evans, he testifies at daytime. As the expert, it fell on him to dig for the truth. He offered his service? Did he help - the hospital, the doctors?

That unit... things were not right there, but they were working hard. If he saw that they were too intense, maybe sharing some erroneous thinking, he could have pulled out.
He did nothing. And if Drs. B@J will end in hot water, it will be because of him. JMO, of course.

 

[JosieJo]

It’s not just the noise from the defence that is leading to such debate. LL was found guilty of some of the deaths, there was and still is ongoing investigation into other deaths or near misses. There were babies she was found not guilty of. The inquiry itself is looking into other factors. Which ever side of the fence you sit on, or if your getting a sore backside from being completely on the fence, like myself- there are still unanswered questions, there are still other aspects to be investigated and discussed and some of these feed into evidence presented at trial. Whilst the sewage (and I haven’t really delved into that aspect at all) is contentious to some, we still don’t know if it was a cause for other deaths and infections on the unit at that time- we only know the babies discussed in the trial (and we know they are looking into more). At this point in time the police investigation is ongoing, an inquiry is on going, I’m sure there are other aspects being looked into that we are oblivious to as well. I think most of us on here value the opinions from both camps, appreciate the clarity sometimes when we are mistaken and corrected, I know I do.

I agree there are lots of reasons the case is still up for discussion.
What I do not like particularly is this defence PR tactic.
A lot of people who followed the trial more closely such as here and other platforms will discuss the enquiry and potential other charges.
But 90% of the general public will only be seeing the defence PR campaign..causing uniformed hysteria almost

 

[mrC]

the prosecution had pr campaign why shouldn't the defence

 

[Sweeper2000]

the prosecution had pr campaign why shouldn't the defence

It didn't at all, it didn't need one. the press will report what they want to but nj and crew did not need one for clout.

 

[Ruthbullock]

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0003829.pdf

This was a business case from December 2015 about some of the staffing issues within the unit.

 

[iamshadow21]

I don’t know what to think of Lucy’s role. I think that since there are other, more plausible, explanations for these deaths, than murder, it is logical to stick to the alternative explanations.

The problem with thinking "horses not zebras" when there's a serial killer in your NICU is that people equate deliberate harm not with zebras, but with unicorns. They forget that deliberate harm is a realistic possibility, and dismiss alarming or suspicious events or actions, even when a single person is the focal point.

That's one of the reasons why medical serial killers tend to be incredibly successful and have comparatively high body counts to other variations of serial killers.

Other reasons are training in drugs and medical procedures, access to vulnerable people who may have uncertain or precarious outcomes, and the mantle of benign goodness a 'helping' profession conveys on an individual in the eyes of the world.

MOO

 

[JosieJo]

the prosecution had pr campaign why shouldn't the defence

What PR campaign? Pre trial ?

 

[Charlot123]

The problem with thinking "horses not zebras" when there's a serial killer in your NICU is that people equate deliberate harm not with zebras, but with unicorns. They forget that deliberate harm is a realistic possibility, and dismiss alarming or suspicious events or actions, even when a single person is the focal point.

That's one of the reasons why medical serial killers tend to be incredibly successful and have comparatively high body counts to other variations of serial killers.

Other reasons are training in drugs and medical procedures, access to vulnerable people who may have uncertain or precarious outcomes, and the mantle of benign goodness a 'helping' profession conveys on an individual in the eyes of the world.

MOO

The problem I see it, people consider serial killers in the NICU as unicorns and forget that pseudomonas aeruginosa, this horrible infection that is now resistant to many antibiotics and potentially deadly to people with weakened immune system or neonates, should be regarded as a unicorn and treated accordingly. If it is viewed as “just one more horse”, then you don’t need to wait for the unicorn serial killer for bad things to start happening in the NICU.

If you can’t lower disorganization, clean the unit, fix the tubing, take training courses in resuscitation, make yourself accessible to nurses and interns, spend more time on the floor and after you control for it, the deaths still stay high, then yes, consider including a human factor into the equation,

But they didn’t do anything of sorts. They, spent the time being interviewed and complaining of NHS. Investing into own image, not the unit’s one. They so much disregarded NICU that when the experts appeared, their opinion was, “it would have been closed back home”.

Now, it is blunt and Canadian healthcare system is a mix of private and public. You just can’t compare the two situations. But the good doctors had 10 years to change things in the unit, for their parents, and they did not.

 

[mrC]

a pr firm organising a press conference its hardly sinister thats all they did orgnise a press conference they dident set up the thirwel inquiry wich is one of the major reasons to doubt the conviction

 

[mrC]

from ann diamond in the telgraph https://archive.ph/OTkI3

 

[Sweeper2000]

a pr firm organising a press conference its hardly sinister thats all they did orgnise a press conference they dident set up the thirwel inquiry wich is one of the major reasons to doubt the conviction

I wouldn't say its sinister at all. imo there is only one individual who is. i would say its unprofessional, its a bit low for mcdonalds approach to more involve the public, i think its potentially grevious to the families of the babies and I think would have achieved the same without the spectacle. which would obviously be better for the families. That would have been my approach.

from ann diamond in the telgraph https://archive.ph/OTkI3

i totally understand that sentiment. she has been very much through it but this case is something very different indeed. cot death was unknown back then so mistakes will definitely happen, in this case the babies case files can only seem to be explained through human and very deliberate action. thats completely different.

I know lee and co have provided a differential diagnosis in some cases but I will wait to see if it gets confirmed as a viable alternative route before i jump on that bandwagon. it needs to gt through the courts before i pay it due heed.

 

[joltz]

a pr firm organising a press conference its hardly sinister thats all they did orgnise a press conference they dident set up the thirwel inquiry wich is one of the major reasons to doubt the conviction

Are you suggesting that we should doubt the conviction because we've had a public enquiry about it?