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

[joltz]

I must admit, I am amused to see the old "none of the other nurses saw anything suspicious" line get trotted out again.

After all, history shows us that murderers always wait until someone else is watching them, before carrying out the act. /s

I saw this! Like who cares? It means absolutely nothing. Almost all healthcare killers are never witnessed doing anything untoward. Its the perfect environment for them to operate. They can commit murderous acts, in broad daylight, under the guise of giving care. What don't people get about this.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I saw this! Like who cares? It means absolutely nothing. Almost all healthcare killers are never witnessed doing anything untoward. Its the perfect environment for them to operate. They can commit murderous acts, in broad daylight, under the guise of giving care. What don't people get about this.

but what are the chances though? so many alleged "attacks" but noone saw a thing? its impopossible

 

[Sweeper2000]

I don't think she was saying she caught LL in the act itself as in damaging the baby at that moment in time more that in inaction she lucy was then harming the child. if you did something accidentally and then decided to not do anything about it you are still harming the child because the damage will just worsen.

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

These murders and assaults are a case of abuse by a trusted caregiver. The mother of Baby E was deeply unsettled by what she saw but pushed that feeling aside because Letby was in a position of trust. This is something parents sadly sometimes have to do. They are in an unfamiliar environment. They cannot interpret the things they see without some context. So they can only trust that the staff have their child's best interest in mind. And Letby abused the trust placed in her. "Trust me, I'm a nurse." That's how she persuaded Mother E to go away. With false context. By lying. That's why Letby's crimes are so horrific and predatory.

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

And quite frankly if Letby had been telling the truth about the ng tube rubbing (she wasn't) , then that means she was one of the most garbage neonatal nurses I've ever heard of. Nothing short of an airway emergency should induce you to be so rough placing something in a child's mouth that you would cause bleeding like that.

 

[Rohmer]

I don't think she was saying she caught LL in the act itself as in damaging the baby at that moment in time more that in inaction she lucy was then harming the child. if you did something accidentally and then decided to not do anything about it you are still harming the child because the damage will just worsen.

I agree with your last point, but I take issue with the idea that she was incontrovertibly caught in inaction. Someone said that since some experts are saying that harm was inflicted and another group or saying there was no harm involved, well we can’t really prove one way or the other for certain, it’s all opinion.

But this supposed web of lies Letby has been proved to be tangled up in, it’s based on notoriously unreliable eyewitness testimony or discrepancies in records that in and of themselves don’t prove Letby was lying as against misremembering things from 6 years before. Many errors were made by different staff who were doing their best under difficult circumstances looking after these babies.

If we cannot determine categorically from case notes looking at hard evidence whether these babies suffered harm are we in any better position to determine whether these inconsistencies in records and recollections amount to lies categorically let alone lies in service of harm inflicted whether by action or inaction.

If another panel of experts weigh in that Letby inflicted no harm, well the standard is that they can never be sure one way or another. But we can be absolutely sure that Letby lied and manipulated and was caught in inaction based on records and testimony about events from years before.

To me these just aren’t fair standards of accurately measuring the evidentiary value of these arguments and claims.

 

[Tricia]

Please you must provide links if you quote any sort of interview or court documents. You must only use approved sources. Unheard is not an approved source.
Thank you,
Tricia

 

[joltz]

These murders and assaults are a case of abuse by a trusted caregiver. The mother of Baby E was deeply unsettled by what she saw but pushed that feeling aside because Letby was in a position of trust. This is something parents sadly sometimes have to do. They are in an unfamiliar environment. They cannot interpret the things they see without some context. So they can only trust that the staff have their child's best interest in mind. And Letby abused the trust placed in her. "Trust me, I'm a nurse." That's how she persuaded Mother E to go away. With false context. By lying. That's why Letby's crimes are so horrific and predatory.

Exactly, the mother didn't have the context but she knew something was clearly wrong with her baby despite Letbys insistance, which is why she phoned her husband. Her husband also had to reassure her but she was right, there was something terribly wrong with the baby.

It puts me in mind of the situation when Letbys nurse colleague, felt there was something wrong with one of the triplets and wanted them moving to high dependency room 1, but Letby acted funny with her and refused the request. The nurse remembered the incident well enough to testify about how uncomfortable Letby made her feel and of course the baby died a short while later.

 

[joltz]

And quite frankly if Letby had been telling the truth about the ng tube rubbing (she wasn't) , then that means she was one of the most garbage neonatal nurses I've ever heard of. Nothing short of an airway emergency should induce you to be so rough placing something in a child's mouth that you would cause bleeding like that.

The baby is testified to be screaming a scream that shouldn't come from a baby and had blood on several places around it's face/neck but hey, here's Letby apparently unaware just catching up on some important stuff at the nurses station! Pull the other one!

 

[Sweeper2000]

I agree with your last point, but I take issue with the idea that she was incontrovertibly caught in inaction. Someone said that since some experts are saying that harm was inflicted and another group or saying there was no harm involved, well we can’t really prove one way or the other for certain, it’s all opinion.

But this supposed web of lies Letby has been proved to be tangled up in, it’s based on notoriously unreliable eyewitness testimony or discrepancies in records that in and of themselves don’t prove Letby was lying as against misremembering things from 6 years before. Many errors were made by different staff who were doing their best under difficult circumstances looking after these babies.

If we cannot determine categorically from case notes looking at hard evidence whether these babies suffered harm are we in any better position to determine whether these inconsistencies in records and recollections amount to lies categorically let alone lies in service of harm inflicted whether by action or inaction.

If another panel of experts weigh in that Letby inflicted no harm, well the standard is that they can never be sure one way or another. But we can be absolutely sure that Letby lied and manipulated and was caught in inaction based on records and testimony about events from years before.

To me these just aren’t fair standards of accurately measuring the evidentiary value of these arguments and claims.

in all honesty I dont think this is a He says/she says situation, its simply not. If Lucy had done nothing wrong we would not have heard the mum of baby E testify to what she saw which was supported in the strongest possible sense by her phone records. Its also true that Lucy if she had done nothing wrong would not have falsified the feeding times, theres just no reason for her to change the times if she had done nothing. why lie if there is no reason for it? we had the doc say they didnt advise to omit the feed as per the schedule and as noted by lucy, we also have the mums testimony which is incredibly alarming which is backed by the incontrovertible proof of her phone records. as far as i know there are no inconsistencies in anything, she has been found to be lying in her notes and she wouldnt have lied if she had done nothing wrong. simple common sense. there is also no doubt at all about the truth of baby e mum calling dad at 9.11 the pohone records dont lie nor is its storage system able to muddle the numbers like the human mind may. so we can say without doubt mum called dad at 9.11, we can also say without doubt the doc did not advise to omit the feed and thus we conclude that without a doubt lucy lied in those notes, then we find out the reason she lied and we did and she was convicted accordingly. in my memory Baby E was the closest to a black and white case in all of the charges as there was so little room for doubt perhaps on a par with the insulin. even if LL didnt remember correctly six years later she still had no reason to lie at the time unless she ahd done something. the rest of the testimony is nearly always spported by notes and records which dont lie.

In terms of hard proof of harm done on baby E we have the med notes and I don't knwo about you but im no doctor so have to rely on what doctors and authority say on such matters. there position on baby e is clear as crystal and the new panel are yet to be verified by the authority on high. the new panel only become active players if their psoitions are accepted and i dont think they will be. im sure if we looked hard enough we could find people willing to disagree with the new panel as well and them after and so on and so forth for all eternity if we thought it sensible but its not is it? w have to trust in the system and i think it wise to also trust in the testimony we hear from all witnesses including letby up until the point we are given reason not to trust it and there was only one person found to be untrustworthy in all of this.

you do have to put faith in the system, to a degree. as an example we have been able to trace this sequence of events all the way back like way back when and all the info within. part of that info included these babies case notes going through multiple levels of medical authority no doutb being scrutinised the whole way and checked with minute detail in mind about possible scenarios of what happened and right up to dr evans there was no natural medical reason for the events as we now know so we do have to conclude tat medical minds much more medically minded than us have found the reason after many levels of checking and investigation and that reason was lucy letby.

in my mind at least there is little doubt.

ETA I would like to add that in truth there is the possibility of victims on either side of this trial assuming no wrongdoing and it is imo that the victims are the babies, the families and even the staff at the coch and it would be a incredibly unjust thing to not pay attention to that and incredibly callous too.

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

The baby is testified to be screaming a scream that shouldn't come from a baby and had blood on several places around it's face/neck but hey, here's Letby apparently unaware just catching up on some important stuff at the nurses station! Pull the other one!

Right. Even if we assume completely benign circumstances, her response is at best either lazy or callous.

 

[Sweeper2000]

These murders and assaults are a case of abuse by a trusted caregiver. The mother of Baby E was deeply unsettled by what she saw but pushed that feeling aside because Letby was in a position of trust. This is something parents sadly sometimes have to do. They are in an unfamiliar environment. They cannot interpret the things they see without some context. So they can only trust that the staff have their child's best interest in mind. And Letby abused the trust placed in her. "Trust me, I'm a nurse." That's how she persuaded Mother E to go away. With false context. By lying. That's why Letby's crimes are so horrific and predatory.

this was probably the worst case because it was painted in such clarity the events of that night and what that woman had to go through. wheeling herself down to see her newborn, still bruised and battered after giving birth and finding that scene and not knowing for sure but knowing enough and then being lied to. if that doesnt make you angry itll make you cry or should or even both. its difficult to comprehend.

here was what baby E's mum did after and this will make your blood boil. frankly it angers me that there is doubt still, even the new panel are yet to put forth a coherent counter to the prosecutions.

"I said goodbye to (Child E and F’s parents) as (Child F) might go tomorrow, she wrote in one message, reported PA. "They both cried & hugged me saying they will never be able to thank me for the love & care I gave to (Child E) & for the precious memories I’ve given them. It’s heart-breaking."

eta
curse my minds mental imagery, its torturous.

Unknowing parents thanked and hugged Lucy Letby after she'd killed their baby boy

In a series of texts sent to her colleagues at the hospital, Letby described comforting the parents of the babies she has since been found guilty of attacking.

uk.news.yahoo.com

 

[katydid23]

well if sweenys cliams about the doctor killing the baby are untrue they would constitute libel and the doctor could easly instructer a lawyer to sue and they would win easily and get damages.

its very funny they chose not to do this

Who knows---maybe he will eventually file suit. But often, people in the public's eye choose to let some things go instead of making a bigger thing go viral. IMO

 

[katydid23]

what could be more damaging for an accusation they had killed someone they could easly prove damage

doctors are not poor they could easily afford to file a claim

in a libel case the person fileing the lawsuit does not prove anything

the burden of proof is on the defendant

NOT True. The burden of proof is on the person filing suit. You have it backwards.

 

[katydid23]

elisbeth marshall was also on shift for 3 of the baby deaths but she doesnt seem to hae noticed lucy doing anything https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0003190_1,2,3,4.pdf

So ? Obviously LL was cunning and didn't do anything noticeable when co-workers were nearby.

She was alone with the vulnerable babies most of her shift.

 

[mrC]

it also means she wasn't alone with the babies as has been cliamed

 

[katydid23]

If

‘She has no reason to believe he was actually assaulted.’

That’s the point I’m making.

You missed my point then. I was saying that INITIALLY, the mom did not assume LL was assaulting her child. She came upon a screaming bleeding baby, tried to comfort him and he wouldn't calm down.

She believed LL when she said she'd already called the doctor, and he was on the way to take care of things.

It was only when LL DENIED that any of that happened that the parents KNEW LL was a liar.

And the only reason she'd lie about that was if she was covering up something about that tragic incident.

Hypothetically speaking, if every remaining medical expert in the entire world joins a new panel claiming that there was no intentional harm done to the babies, then will all these inconsistencies in Letby’s testimony and recollections really have that much evidentiary value? I don’t think so. The reason is because it’s not absolute proof of lying. It’s only proof of lying if she’s guilty, but we’re trying to weight this circumstantial evidence of ‘lying’ and inconsistencies separately to determine if it’s strong or weak evidence. And it’s weak evidence. It’s just as easily explained away by Letby not recollecting events properly, events from 6 years or more ago.

NO, it is not about Letby not recollecting correctly. I believe she was lying intentionally.

But hey, let's say it was just that.

Let's say she wasn't lying about Baby E. Let's say, as you suggest, that she just didn't have a clear recollection.

IF SO, if your suggestion is correct, then that makes Letby GUILTY of malicious activity in the Baby E case.

If that Baby was screaming in pain and bleeding from the mouth before 9 pm, and LL did not ever report him bleeding from the mouth, and reach out for help, then she is guilty of criminal neglect at the least.

How many medical records in current circulation are inaccurate? How many have serious inaccuracies that endanger patients? I bet the answer is not a few. But we don’t assume that these records have been falsified. We don’t assume relevant staff are lying when the can’t remember who was where when etc.

No one 'assumed' they were falsified. The investigators 'investigated', researched, looked at all the other staff notes and all of the other data from electronic devices, and all of the texts and DMs, interviewed everyone, in order to find out if they were intentional, accidental or just mistakes.

When she wrote that the 9 PM feed was OMITTED, and the milk was thrown out, that was an outright lie. It was not a mistake. It was not poor recollection. It was intentional on her part. And there was no corroboration of any of what she entered in her observation nots.

 

[Moll]

So ? Obviously LL was cunning and didn't do anything noticeable when co-workers were nearby.

She was alone with the vulnerable babies most of her shift.

it also means she wasn't alone with the babies as has been cliamed

Hang on - hasn't Tortoise already shown using enquiry evidence in post #637 that Elizabeth Marshall didn't say she was present? As a junior nurse she was working in the outside nurseries, not in room 1. Her evidence was rather vague and inconclusive for this reason.

(katydid23 was replying to mrC's post about Elizabeth Marshall not seeing LL do anything untoward.)

 

[katydid23]

but what are the chances though? so many alleged "attacks" but noone saw a thing? its impopossible

I think it makes sense that no one else saw anything incriminating. Neo-natal nurses are alone with their patients most of the time. It's very easy to track what the other nurses are doing.

When the co-worker in that nursery goes on break, she'd have lots of alone time. And even if someone walked in on her, what would they really even see? Her actions could have looked very normal and routine, like she was just giving an IV or a treatment of some kind.

 

[katydid23]

it also means she wasn't alone with the babies as has been cliamed

Of course she was alone with them. Baby E's mom testified that LL was the only person there when her baby was crying and bleeding.

There was a lot of trial testimony where the witnesses went into a nursery where LL was the only one present. Documented, under oath testimony about LL being alone in nurseries with the victims at some point.