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

[WaneLyrical]

That's is what we are waiting to find out though isn't it ? ..if the court of Appeal find there is evidence that may have influenced a jury they things can go from there .. that's something we can only have opinions on ...even her representatives can spout whatever they like it doesn't make it relevant to the original jury at trial

Well yes but it seems like it needs something else. It shouldn’t be about a battle of experts, and having to weed out those who are biased/conflicted, and personally I think there’s reasonable suggestions that both Evans and Lee are biased in their findings. There needs to be consensus among truly independent experts. Otherwise, it’s not clear how any lawyer or judge is able to arrive at a legitimate conclusion on whether the jury was misled.

 

[Ruthbullock]

doctors who are hardly ever at work counts as poor care as far as i am concerned

Do you mean because they had twice weekly consultant visits rather than the recommended twice daily? Rather than they werent at work, they just weren’t on site- they were often based 40 miles away at Liverpool.

 

[mrC]

so twenty-five of the worrlds to top medical experts all conspiring to tell lies on behalf of a nurse they don't know and have never even met and on top of that they are doing it for nothing well that makes sense

 

[Anxala]

Respectfully, I thought the posts were not about me or you but about justice. I hope people agree to disagree.

Respectfully, you've actively made them about you because you've continued to so egregiously ignore factual corrections to practically everything you've posted as facts.

There's no agreeing to disagree with facts. If you see that as an injustuce, so be it.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Respectfully, you've actively made them about you because you've continued to so egregiously ignore factual corrections to practically everything you've posted as facts.

There's no agreeing to disagree with facts. If you see that as an injustuce, so be it.

That is not the case- many people on here post and state their evidence as it was said at trial. What was “ said”at trial is not fact- it’s legal teams who are arguing either side of a case and trying to substantiate their argument. The evidence , which are the only facts, is the only thing that people should be using to counter disagreements about the trial. To declare otherwise is a disservice to both the prosecution and the defence as you are implying they did not argue their case and if that didn’t need to happen we would not need lawyers at all- we would just submit evidence and a panel/jury would be able to reach a conclusion.

 

[JosieJo]

Do you mean because they had twice weekly consultant visits rather than the recommended twice daily? Rather than they werent at work, they just weren’t on site- they were often based 40 miles away at Liverpool.

Why were they often at Liverpool?

 

[Ruthbullock]

Why were they often at Liverpool?

That was their base, the bigger hospital with the more complex cases- it’s similar around the country for all hospital departments that the consultants are shared across numerous sites.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Maternity Services in Cheshire and Merseyside

Welcome to the Cheshire and Merseyside Women's and Children's Services Partnership - Improving Me Programme Website. We are a partnership of 27 NHS organisations across Cheshire and Merseyside aiming to improve the experience of women and children. The Partnership is one of the Vanguard's New...

improvingme.org.uk

Here’s a list of all the hospitals with links to each

 

[JosieJo]

That was their base, the bigger hospital with the more complex cases- it’s similar around the country for all hospital departments that the consultants are shared across numerous sites.

I was under the impression that although hospital trusts can be linked ...but in Chesters case their consultants only had patients at the Countess...as in they covered Paediatric wards , Neonatal , Paediatric outpatients and Paediatric patients in ED ...but all at the COCH?

 

[Moll]

That was their base, the bigger hospital with the more complex cases- it’s similar around the country for all hospital departments that the consultants are shared across numerous sites.

Are you sure about this? Which COC consultants involved in this case were also at Liverpool?
Liverpool and the COC are different trusts.
Your more general statement also surprises me - consultants shared across numerous sites, really?

 

[Tortoise]

That is not the case- many people on here post and state their evidence as it was said at trial. What was “ said”at trial is not fact- it’s legal teams who are arguing either side of a case and trying to substantiate their argument. The evidence , which are the only facts, is the only thing that people should be using to counter disagreements about the trial. To declare otherwise is a disservice to both the prosecution and the defence as you are implying they did not argue their case and if that didn’t need to happen we would not need lawyers at all- we would just submit evidence and a panel/jury would be able to reach a conclusion.

What somebody said is a matter of fact by reference to transcripts. When what was said is ignored or misreported, it is factually wrong and is misinformation, ripe for correction.

A handful of posters here continually misinterpret and misinform what was testified to, and the evidence presented, based on not researching and not following the trial, or the inquiry, twisting of facts, conjecture, and/or relying on other misinformed individuals.

 

[Tortoise]

Do you mean because they had twice weekly consultant visits rather than the recommended twice daily? Rather than they werent at work, they just weren’t on site- they were often based 40 miles away at Liverpool.

Could you provide a link to where the COCH NNU consultants said, or anyone else said on their behalf, they were often based at Liverpool please.

 

[Marantz4250b]

What somebody said is a matter of fact by reference to transcripts. When what was said is ignored or misreported, it is factually wrong and is misinformation, ripe for correction.

A handful of posters here continually misinterpret and misinform what was testified to, and the evidence presented, based on not researching and not following the trial, or the inquiry, twisting of facts, conjecture, and/or relying on other misinformed individuals.

I agree entirely.

A few more people here are going on my ignore list because I sometimes forget that this isn't the PistonHeads forum and saying what I really think will likely earn me a ban.

Actually, even they banned me eventually which is saying something!

 

[Furore]

Some of us have had similar thoughts.

I have reached the point I think individuals may be trolling and have run out of energy/patience to engage in good faith unfortunately. JMO

 

[Ruthbullock]

I was under the impression that although hospital trusts can be linked ...but in Chesters case their consultants only had patients at the Countess...as in they covered Paediatric wards , Neonatal , Paediatric outpatients and Paediatric patients in ED ...but all at the COCH?

They did I misunderstood, it was the emergency support teams who had to travel from Liverpool when they had difficulties

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Thirlwall-Inquiry-2-Oct-2024.pdf

 

[Ruthbullock]

They did I misunderstood, it was the emergency support teams who had to travel from Liverpool when they had difficulties

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Thirlwall-Inquiry-2-Oct-2024.pdf

The doctors did 6 month rotations around all the hospitals

 

[Tortoise]

The doctors did 6 month rotations around all the hospitals

While they were training. That is doctors below consultant level.

 

[JosieJo]

They did I misunderstood, it was the emergency support teams who had to travel from Liverpool when they had difficulties

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Thirlwall-Inquiry-2-Oct-2024.pdf

I thought that was odd and hadn't heard that ...but I haven't followed the inquiry in any depth.

It's more likely having to cover all paeds depts plus neonatal that stretches the teams ..especially in a general hospital..unlike in specialised centres

 

[Ruthbullock]

There is one comment, from either a parent or a consultant about having to travel from Liverpool but it could well be the emergency teams and I misread as they were just referred to as doctor. My response however was trying to get Mr C to explain his statement further, without taking the belittling approach some posters are to other people.

 

[Ruthbullock]

What somebody said is a matter of fact by reference to transcripts. When what was said is ignored or misreported, it is factually wrong and is misinformation, ripe for correction.

A handful of posters here continually misinterpret and misinform what was testified to, and the evidence presented, based on not researching and not following the trial, or the inquiry, twisting of facts, conjecture, and/or relying on other misinformed individuals.

A handful of posters also continually post “that’s a fact it was said at trial” whilst not so much as attempting to find a link or even post a quote and are just taking the approach of posting to share their disapproval of other people’s opinions or evidence that has emerged since that contradicts it.
I read once again last night the parents closing submissions to the inquiry- there is a lot of criticism of the fact that DATIX forms and SUDIC procedures weren’t followed, that LADO wasn’t informed, that medical notes weren’t accurate, that post mortems weren’t ordered and blood tests weren’t redone even when requested- these are part of the doctors and consultants roles. I always knew the parents were represented in 2 groups, but it was only upon looking again at what they were highlighting that I realised- one groups babies mostly did have post mortems and the other family groups didn’t- so the closing submissions for one group has several mentions of failures by the doctors to refer, whereas the other submission doesn’t.

The poster recently ( who was attacking another posters relevant post, and whom I then replied to) who stated there is zero evidence of deaths from poor care- I think the parent who caught a doctor googling a procedure would disagree, the parents whose baby died prior to all of this emerging and caused by a doctor still on shift whilst LL was there, and subsequently had there name protected in the inquiry, those parents would also disagree and whilst there is so much for the parents to be dissatisfied about and it should focus on how LL was not noticed, the closing submissions do mention poor care and a lack of duty of candour for the doctors- so to suggest there was zero evidence of deaths caused by poor care- because that’s how it appeared at the trial, isn’t a fact. In fact I would guess some of the deaths marked as suspicious for Dr Evans to look into and later dropped from the court case may well have been dropped as it was found to be poor care- but that was not part of the trial, because that was not what the trial was about, nor is it how a trial works.
At the time LL worked there COCH was deemed by the CQC as not meeting standards and still to this day it’s is a failing hospital.