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 #37

[Sweeper2000]

Just these ones? Or more? Because the prosecution said they thought more, only couldn’t prove…

she had kept 250 ho sheets, found in locations all over her house. these ones were found in a bag under her bed.

 

[Charlot123]

The handover debacle is absolutely relevant. It clearly shows that Letby was happy to break the rules from the moment she became a nurse despite being aware of the significance of patient data. If Letby had been found with the handover notes in any other circumstances she would possibly have lost her job and been prosecuted.


The handover notes aren't just bits of paper mixed in with other bits of paper they contain the confidential information of babies that died in Letbys care and for whom she was proven to be searching for online. It's a fact that Letby could not spell a family name for whom she was searching for online. She had the handover notes of almost every single baby in the charges underneath her bed. I wouldn't necessarily call them trophies but they gave Letby the ability to research and recount.

by her own wording, Letby was taking them home, removing them from her pockets, putting them into her workbag and then ferrying to and from work everyday.

I personally don't believe that she was doing this, but this clearly shows that she had an awareness of what she was doing every single day. She choose to take them home with purpose. What that purpose was is debatable but it's a fact that she purposely took home the handover notes and kept them underneath her bed, moved with them and took them with her. She kept some at her parents home. If these are bits of insignificant paper that you collect by habit then you don't keep some in a box marked "keep"

The handover notes had an absolute significance, Letby kept them and took them with purpose. She stored them underneath her bed and took them to multiple properties that she moved to.

The handovers provided a key insight into Letby's behaviour when testifying. She altered her version of events to suit the questions being asked at the time, while contradicting things she had said previously.

There had also been 2 recent patient data breaches at the hospital with paperwork which had made the local news, so this was an issue that Letby would have been very much aware of.

Here is my concern, if she had handover sheets of many kids she was searching for, it still doesn’t explain why.

“Why” might be different. Supposedly Lucy, being not socially quite aware, wanted to write a bestseller about a nurse’s life? A romance, perhaps? Then it could have been the reason to keep the books and the information about the patients and their parents.

It could have been simple OCD/hoarding, but I am not sure. It likely belongs into the imaginary world.

 

[WaneLyrical]

Weren't these "experts" engineers rather than endocrinologists? That is not "equal standing", by a long shot.

An “engineer” who received an honour for developing the gold standard in modelling and care for blood sugar issues in adults, along with a separate protocol for pre-term infants given their different physiology. He’s not qualified enough to have a legitimate opinion on this?

 

[joltz]

I don’t know why they didn’t call experts, because there certainly doesn’t seem to be any shortage of experts coming forward and putting their reputations on the line to question what the evidence shows.

The jury heard something like 100 days of evidence spread over many many months. The had to ask for notepads on day 40 for goodness sake. Then they tried to ask questions about insulin and sought transcripts while they were deliberating, and got told to beat it. I feel sorry for the jury.

Here is my concern, if she had handover sheets of many kids she was searching for, it still doesn’t explain why.

“Why” might be different. Supposedly Lucy, being not socially quite aware, wanted to write a bestseller about a nurse’s life? A romance, perhaps? Then it could have been the reason to keep the books and the information about the patients and their parents.

It could have been simple OCD/hoarding, but I am not sure. It likely belongs into the imaginary world.

Letby had plenty of time to decide what she wanted to say about the handovers, she was asked about them multiple times in police interviews and at her trial.

What you are suggesting is just nonsensical. We can only work with the evidence we have. I find it pointless inventing scenarios which Letby herself has never offered as explanation. She changed her story continuously and her narrative based on the evidence she gave ,still doesn't make sense.

That's because she was lying.

JMO

 

[WaneLyrical]

The handover debacle is absolutely relevant. It clearly shows that Letby was happy to break the rules from the moment she became a nurse despite being aware of the significance of patient data. If Letby had been found with the handover notes in any other circumstances she would possibly have lost her job and been prosecuted.


The handover notes aren't just bits of paper mixed in with other bits of paper they contain the confidential information of babies that died in Letbys care and for whom she was proven to be searching for online. It's a fact that Letby could not spell a family name for whom she was searching for online. She had the handover notes of almost every single baby in the charges underneath her bed. I wouldn't necessarily call them trophies but they gave Letby the ability to research and recount.

by her own wording, Letby was taking them home, removing them from her pockets, putting them into her workbag and then ferrying to and from work everyday.

I personally don't believe that she was doing this, but this clearly shows that she had an awareness of what she was doing every single day. She choose to take them home with purpose. What that purpose was is debatable but it's a fact that she purposely took home the handover notes and kept them underneath her bed, moved with them and took them with her. She kept some at her parents home. If these are bits of insignificant paper that you collect by habit then you don't keep some in a box marked "keep"

The handover notes had an absolute significance, Letby kept them and took them with purpose. She stored them underneath her bed and took them to multiple properties that she moved to.

The handovers provided a key insight into Letby's behaviour when testifying. She altered her version of events to suit the questions being asked at the time, while contradicting things she had said previously.

There had also been 2 recent patient data breaches at the hospital with paperwork which had made the local news, so this was an issue that Letby would have been very much aware of.

And this is fair enough, we can disagree on it. For me, it’s only relevant if it’s been properly established that someone was causing deliberate harm. And the timing of the Child K search is more suggestive of her being tipped off as to which babies the police were interviewing about. I’d like to know who else on the ward also looked at the families involved, but obviously we’ll never know that.

 

[joltz]

An “engineer” who received an honour for developing the gold standard in modelling and care for blood sugar issues in adults, along with a separate protocol for pre-term infants given their different physiology. He’s not qualified enough to have a legitimate opinion on this?

Anyone can have an opinion. Its quite a different thing to offer your services to the court as an expert and come under cross examination. Letby had a defence guided by experts and none of them were called.

 

[joltz]

And this is fair enough, we can disagree on it. For me, it’s only relevant if it’s been properly established that someone was causing deliberate harm. And the timing of the Child K search is more suggestive of her being tipped off as to which babies the police were interviewing about. I’d like to know who else on the ward also looked at the families involved, but obviously we’ll never know that.

Letby was asked this and she denied it so that's incorrect.

 

[WaneLyrical]

Anyone can have an opinion. Its quite a different thing to offer your services to the court as an expert and come under cross examination. Letby had a defence guided by experts and none of them were called.

Great and we’re back to closing the circle. Didn’t happen in court so nobody should care if it looks increasingly like the jury was misled.

 

[WaneLyrical]

Letby was asked this and she denied it so that's incorrect.

Big coincidence then isn’t it, that she wouldn’t need her grief vampire fix until such time that police interviews were kicking off

 

[JosieJo]

And this is fair enough, we can disagree on it. For me, it’s only relevant if it’s been properly established that someone was causing deliberate harm. And the timing of the Child K search is more suggestive of her being tipped off as to which babies the police were interviewing about. I’d like to know who else on the ward also looked at the families involved, but obviously we’ll never know that.

It wasn't "only" looking at parents on Facebook though ...it was the pattern...she would search for these families in quick succession ...in groups .. to search for her victims "together" is far more damning

Regarding the insulin the prosecution expert was also eminent...an endocrinologist from Alder Hay

 

[WaneLyrical]

It wasn't "only" looking at parents on Facebook though ...it was the pattern...she would search for these families in quick succession ...in groups .. to search for her victims "together" is far more damning

Regarding the insulin the prosecution expert was also eminent...an endocrinologist from Alder Hay

It’s only damning if they were actual “victims”. Otherwise she’s just looking to see how the families of babies that had significant events on her watch were doing.

And I’m not disagreeing about who or what was presented in court about insulin, it was the entire basis for me considering if her guilt was established or not. I am however shocked at the ease with which people can disregard someone equally as knowledgeable who is saying “hold on, this would be true for an older child, but it does not hold true for a pre term baby”.

 

[Sweeper2000]

It’s only damning if they were actual “victims”. Otherwise she’s just looking to see how the families of babies that had significant events on her watch were doing.

And I’m not disagreeing about who or what was presented in court about insulin, it was the entire basis for me considering if her guilt was established or not. I am however shocked at the ease with which people can disregard someone equally as knowledgeable who is saying “hold on, this would be true for an older child, but it does not hold true for a pre term baby”.

I get where u r coming from. We did in the trial go through and see other potentials so they were always there, however for me and imo it was the collective nature of the charges and events that made it seem criminal. other explanations yes maybe but other explanations for the series of events and things I really doubt it.

 

[JosieJo]

It’s only damning if they were actual “victims”. Otherwise she’s just looking to see how the families of babies that had significant events on her watch were doing.

And I’m not disagreeing about who or what was presented in court about insulin, it was the entire basis for me considering if her guilt was established or not. I am however shocked at the ease with which people can disregard someone equally as knowledgeable who is saying “hold on, this would be true for an older child, but it does not hold true for a pre term baby”.

I'd have to disagree..many of the babies were not even "on her watch" so to speak ..she wasn't even their designated nurse.
As a nurse myself I can easily understand how a certain case you might be tempted to look how a family are doing ...but not groups of families ...some hadn't died even so it's not deaths linking them...I don't do coincidence...and she had far too much interest in certain babies for a reason.

 

[WaneLyrical]

I get where u r coming from. We did in the trial go through and see other potentials so they were always there, however for me and imo it was the collective nature of the charges and events that made it seem criminal. other explanations yes maybe but other explanations for the series of events and things I really doubt it.

I don’t recall the potential that the insulin c-peptide ratio was not applicable was ever discussed or explored. It was accepted as fact, including by me. The prosecution didn’t even bother outlining their case about the sticky insulin, it just never got mentioned again. Who knows how much insulin was supposed to be given, it’s all finger in the air because nobody bothered to model it or even to run these fluids through an actual machine to measure the output. Those cases were as close to a smoking gun as it gets. If those babies were not poisoned, then what are we left with. Some unexplained deaths.

There is a whole phenomenon of unexplained death in infancy, where no cause can be found, where environmental factors are thought to be significant, and incidentally where air can also be found according to Arthurs’ testimony in the first couple of weeks. We know these babies were lying 24/7 in a room that had hospital wastewater leaking into it, where people were smoking and not even bothering to wash their hands. And while everyone can continue to mock the plumber, he was called because everyone else was denying the problem. We know that something was going on with pre-natal care considering the huge spike in stillbirths during the same period. But the entire investigation centred around pinning it all on one person who happened to be there, with the evidence being gathered by people who had a vested interest in that being the cause.

A filthy hospital, underresourced, with broken machines, a reluctance to seek help, consultants appearing twice a week instead of twice a day, where nobody could even ascertain if a TPN bag was properly changed or simply rehung. Absolute omnishambles, and if it turns out that this wasn’t the work of some constant malevolent presence, then shame on the NHS, the tories, and a broken judicial system.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I don’t recall the potential that the insulin c-peptide ratio was not applicable was ever discussed or explored. It was accepted as fact, including by me. The prosecution didn’t even bother outlining their case about the sticky insulin, it just never got mentioned again. Who knows how much insulin was supposed to be given, it’s all finger in the air because nobody bothered to model it or even to run these fluids through an actual machine to measure the output. Those cases were as close to a smoking gun as it gets. If those babies were not poisoned, then what are we left with. Some unexplained deaths.

There is a whole phenomenon of unexplained death in infancy, where no cause can be found, where environmental factors are thought to be significant, and incidentally where air can also be found according to Arthurs’ testimony in the first couple of weeks. We know these babies were lying 24/7 in a room that had hospital wastewater leaking into it, where people were smoking and not even bothering to wash their hands. And while everyone can continue to mock the plumber, he was called because everyone else was denying the problem. We know that something was going on with pre-natal care considering the huge spike in stillbirths during the same period. But the entire investigation centred around pinning it all on one person who happened to be there, with the evidence being gathered by people who had a vested interest in that being the cause.

A filthy hospital, underresourced, with broken machines, a reluctance to seek help, consultants appearing twice a week instead of twice a day, where nobody could even ascertain if a TPN bag was properly changed or simply rehung. Absolute omnishambles, and if it turns out that this wasn’t the work of some constant malevolent presence, then shame on the NHS, the tories, and a broken judicial system.

i get you, however that insulin issue is a bit up in the air with multiple very high level pro's saying its certified and reliable. wasn't it also the case the glycemia issue corresponded with the administration of the fluids? thus giving a strong indicator that it was indeed insulin in the bags.

The way i read the med reports was the sharpness of decline of many of the babies indicated human action rather than progression of some other medical issue including sids. i also belive the multiple layered checking of the med reports rules out that it was some other issue, remember it went through so many channels and it always came back as unexplained.

 

[WaneLyrical]

i get you, however that insulin issue is a bit up in the air with multiple very high level pro's saying its certified and reliable. wasn't it also the case the glycemia issue corresponded with the administration of the fluids? thus giving a strong indicator that it was indeed insulin in the bags.

The way i read the med reports was the sharpness of decline of many of the babies indicated human action rather than progression of some other medical issue including sids. i also belive the multiple layered checking of the med reports rules out that it was not some other issue, remember it went through so many channels and it always came back as unexplained.

Well with the insulin, the recent report suggested hypoglycaemia happens in 40% of pre term babies, the first baby’s problems were effectively exacerbated by administering blouses of sugar instead of through an iv. And for the second one, the correct protocol was followed and once the glucose was eventually increased to 15% the hypo resolved. Myers did challenge on whether protocol was followed, and for the second one it would have relied on multiple random bags being poisoned in advance and all given specifically to this baby. Plus we have no idea how much insulin they needed to contain given the fact that much of it would have adhered to the tubing.

And yes there were unexplained deaths. But nobody was overly concerned about that at the time, including the pathologist. Or the multiple reviews that were carried out. Suggesting it’s acceptable to not find a cause of death, that to have unexplained deaths is not itself suspicious. So while we can hone in on this handful of unexplained deaths and say it must’ve been murder, because the probability of Letby being there all the time is too difficult to fathom, without knowing the wider context of how often this actually happens in the failing NNU’s up and down the country, then we can’t know the true significance.

And therein lies the problem for me, if this was actually a result of a badly managed ward that had suffered a loss of experience, where someone as inexperienced as Letby was considered one of the better ones, then the actual root problem might not have been established, and the inquiry is looking at the wrong thing.

 

[JosieJo]

"A filthy hospital, underresourced, with broken machines, a reluctance to seek help, consultants appearing twice a week instead of twice a day, where nobody could even ascertain if a TPN bag was properly changed or simply rehung"

People need to understand this is the situation in the vast majority of the NHS ...this is not unique to the COCH by any means ...but sudden unexpected deaths that couldn't be resuscitated as would be expected was

 

[joltz]

Great and we’re back to closing the circle. Didn’t happen in court so nobody should care if it looks increasingly like the jury was misled.

I think for some people it's a case of just disregarding what did happen at court because it wasn't the result they wanted. Which goes hand in hand with believing anything that reinforces their blinkered beliefs...

JMO

 

[WaneLyrical]

"A filthy hospital, underresourced, with broken machines, a reluctance to seek help, consultants appearing twice a week instead of twice a day, where nobody could even ascertain if a TPN bag was properly changed or simply rehung"

People need to understand this is the situation in the vast majority of the NHS ...this is not unique to the COCH by any means ...but sudden unexpected deaths that couldn't be resuscitated as would be expected was

And the ones that could be resuscitated were just as suspicious. Even Evans said the unit should have been closed.

 

[joltz]

"A filthy hospital, underresourced, with broken machines, a reluctance to seek help, consultants appearing twice a week instead of twice a day, where nobody could even ascertain if a TPN bag was properly changed or simply rehung"

People need to understand this is the situation in the vast majority of the NHS ...this is not unique to the COCH by any means ...but sudden unexpected deaths that couldn't be resuscitated as would be expected was

Yes, which is why when the plumber was called to give evidence about the "filthy hospital" all he could do was go over a list of some maintenance jobs he attended.

A bit like any maintenance plumber would have done in any hospital up and down the country of the same age and condition.