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]

Mr. Johnson forgot to ask one more question- if intentional injection of air embolism is the only way for the air to get into the baby's system. Or, could CPAP do it, or several unsuccessful attempts to establish a line, or a 22-minute long CPR. Even if an embolism happened, is it only possible if Lucy caused it?
No presence of air embolism was established. It is all assumed based on the memory of the intern about strange color of the skin. We don't know what he even saw because it is all post factum. He didn't reflect anything in the notes, for starts.

"It is all assumed based on the memory of the intern about strange color of the skin"

What intern are you referencing?

The unusual rash was testified about by over a dozen different members of staff during the trial.

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

OK imagine this. You, the consultant, suspect the babies are being harmed. You don't call the police, you don't care child protective services, you do nothing of sorts. You don't even call Dr. Lee to consult him but then, you use his article that was written in pre-surfactant time. So you either don't understand it or use it for a wrong reason. The only person you do consult is a professional trial witness who's not practicing as doctor for 15 years and has zero NICU experience.

No, that is not what happened. I refer to the Thirlwall inquiry transcripts for extensive discussion about the circumstances surrounding the police report.

 

[joltz]

No, that is not what happened. I refer to the Thirlwall inquiry transcripts for extensive discussion about the circumstances surrounding the police report.

Too much like hard work. People prefer to learn a little bit and then concoct elaborate fantasies for the rest. MHO

 

[Furore]

His email is on his site. He has a LinkedIn account. Lastly, U. of Alberta is a well-known place.

If they invested time and money into such a big process, it would have been a normal precaution. See how it turns out for Dr. Jay now.

Lastly, if air embolism is challenging to prove, how can they state that this is exactly what was the cause of death and this is how Lucy killed them? And, mainly, air embolism happens in ICUs and it is not the result of nefarious activity. Rather, the opposite, everyone is trying to avoid it but it happens.

I will respectfully disagree in that I don’t think it was necessary to email someone about a paper written 30 years prior etc, but to each their own with that.

But again you’re looking at the isolated piecemeal evidence, when you look at the overall picture; a spike in deaths (18 from 3 the year before), starting weeks after Lucy gained her HDU and intravenous administration competencies, with the collapses always happening on her, always when alone, it becomes a balance of probabilities. Serial killers do exist unfortunately, and as discussed previously in the thread, repeated unexplained collapses on the same caregiver are a red flag for abuse. Medical experts are allowed to come to the conclusion they believe a baby dies of air embolus because that best fits the pattern of deterioration and clinical events, just like other experts with only part of the evidence can come to alternate conclusions to the best of their judgement with the info available. It’s up to the jury to avail themselves of all this evidence over the months of trial, which they did, and reach a conclusion.

Clearly if you were on the jury and needed barn door evidence of murder to convict, that would be your right, but there is a range of reactions to the information gone through at trial.

I do feel the doctors have taken so much flak when the obstructive individuals were on the board, none of whom were on the ward, attending the deaths of these children, or in the devastating position of burying them. The parents have been written out of this latest media circus I feel all MOO

 

[Furore]

I agree- but it’s a different defence team and different tactics. A new defence team don’t get to do the trial all over again- so they have taken the put everything out in the public arena option. They aren’t the first defence team who have taken over a case and didn’t represent someone at trial to take that approach and they won’t be the last.

Well they could present this evidence to the court/the commission that reviews appeals like lawyers do up and down the country for every day clients. Again, LL/her team thinking she is above the law makes me uncomfortable.

 

[Furore]

Actually tbf even I’m now appreciating all the evidence gone through at trial and people disagreeing with the outcome should go through all of that before seeing the Shoo Lee circus as particularly new and groundbreaking information. MOO

 

[marynnu]

OK imagine this. You, the consultant, suspect the babies are being harmed. You don't call the police, you don't care child protective services, you do nothing of sorts. You don't even call Dr. Lee to consult him but then, you use his article that was written in pre-surfactant time. So you either don't understand it or use it for a wrong reason. The only person you do consult is a professional trial witness who's not practicing as doctor for 15 years and has zero NICU experience.

The consultants did not contact Dewi Evans, assuming that's who you are talking about. They did exactly what they were supposed to do by alerting hospital management. Either way, their actions do not alter Letby's guilt.

 

[The Ludo Theory]

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.

I am very familiar with Letby's Defence team and whilst I don't dispute their quality, I am not at all convinced they believed she was innocent. It is far more common than people realise for defence lawyers to take cases where they do not believe in their client's innocence. Letby's Defence team may, indeed, have thought she was innocent but they certainly didn't give me that impression.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I am very familiar with Letby's Defence team and whilst I don't dispute their quality, I am not at all convinced they believed she was innocent. It is far more common than people realise for defence lawyers to take cases where they do not believe in their client's innocence. Letby's Defence team may, indeed, have thought she was innocent but they certainly didn't give me that impression.

It is entirely irrelevant what her legal team thought as to her innocence or guilt. Barristers are not allowed to be selective as to what cases they take on, save for rare circumstances where their participation would undermine their clients case or might involve some conflict of interest, breach of duty or suchlike.

 

[Marantz4250b]

For everyone here who has read/heard the conclusions of Dr Lee's panel of experts and think it's important new evidence please watch this video from CS2C, who is a poster here.

Nothing these "experts" are presenting wasn't dealt with in the original trial. They are simply cherry picking bits which sound quite convincing in isolation but were dealt with at great length in the ten month trial and not presenting the other side of them and why they are simply not relevant.

Nothing of what they say is true and none of it is new.

Pay particular attention to the part referring to the condition of the mother (I forget the name of it now and I'm too tired to look it up) allegedly being passed to the child and it being the cause of the collapse and death. That was dealt with at trial and it was accepted by the defence as to not be the case! The mother's condition was not passed to the child - as confirmed by a haematologist - and Ben Myers (LL's KC) accepted that as fact. He accepted it as fact because it WAS a fact!

Why is doctor Lee not pointing out the fact that his theory had already been tested in court and dismissed as false? My guess is because he hasn't actually read the thousands of pages of evidence - and neither has David Davis, regardless of what he claims - and has been fed only the facts that LL's new team want him to present.

Dr Lee and this panel seem to be being manipulated into saying whatever Marc McDonald wants them to say, in my very humble opinion.

 

[Knitty]

This thread is closed. Please continue at Thread #37