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

[Marantz4250b]

How do you disregard the statistics so easily? Nobody is saying the prosecution spent a day outlining statistical arguments (the ridiculous shift chart aside).

The whole argument comes down to: was it coincidence or wasn’t it. Either you believe there are too many coincidences that it’s simply not possible she’s not guilty, or you believe it’s a series of coincidences where things have been twisted to point the finger of deliberate harm by an individual. The medical evidence is evidently up for debate, so what’s left if not statistical arguments?

There were no statistics to disregard.

I fail to see what was "ridiculous" about the shift chart. It was simply a statement of facts - those facts being when she was on shift and that the things she was charged with happened during those shifts.

Of course it was "coincidence". Her shifts co-incided with the events she was charged with. It was up to the jury to decide what weight to put on those facts and they were free to ascribe any level of significance they chose to said facts from it being pure unfortunate chance to it being evidence that he was a serial murderer and everything and anything in-between.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Its only purpose was to show Letby was present at each of the events she was being charged for (minus the one where it transpired she was not on shift). Which we didn’t really need a chart for.

But they chose to make a chart to demonstrate those facts.

Could you explain as to why you think that making something accessible and easily understandable is "ridiculous", please?

 

[Tortoise]

Its only purpose was to show Letby was present at each of the events she was being charged for (minus the one where it transpired she was not on shift). Which we didn’t really need a chart for.

It wasn't only done to show Letby's presence, it was to show the number of events at which all the other nurses and admin staff were present, which was critical information.

Another chart was presented showing doctors and consultants present for each event.

 

[WaneLyrical]

But they chose to make a chart to demonstrate those facts.

Could you explain as to why you think that making something accessible and easily understandable is "ridiculous", please?

If all they cared about was sharing shifts patterns across nursing staff, they could have presented it without the cartoon style row of X’s down the centre against Letby’s name. They could have simply said here’s the other staffing for the shifts relevant to this trial where Letby was present. It served a visual purpose, and was released to the media early on, as though it was supposed to be showing something.

 

[Marantz4250b]

If all they cared about was sharing shifts patterns across nursing staff, they could have presented it without the cartoon style row of X’s down the centre against Letby’s name. They could have simply said here’s the other staffing for the shifts relevant to this trial where Letby was present. It served a visual purpose, and was released to the media early on, as though it was supposed to be showing something.

It was showing something - the shift patterns of all the nurses!

I don't understand how you conclude that any of what you say there makes the chart "ridiculous" so we'll just leave it here.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Do you think it's a case of both/and- that there were both unit/hospital failings AND a murderer who was facilitated by those failings, or do you believe that there was no murder and all the deaths were due to incompetence?

Honestly I’m not sure anymore, but I do believe the former could be true.

 

[Tortoise]

It was showing something - the shift patterns of all the nurses!

I don't understand how you conclude that any of what you say there makes the chart "ridiculous" so we'll just leave it here.

It was just a standard demonstrative, excel spreadsheet, and investigative tool. If Letby had been left off the list the question would no doubt have been why, what are they hiding.

In fact nurse Eirian Powell, neonatal unit manager, had done her own, in October 2015, and updated after more deaths, in Feb 2016, with Letby's name highlighted in red. That is how suspicion originated, by investigating the common themes.

This was Eirian's email to Alison Kelly on 17 Mar 2016, the director of nursing and executive lead for safeguarding, before the attempted murders of babies L, M and N, and the murders of O & P.
https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0003558_02.pdf

Hi Alison,

I was hoping that we could arrange a meeting with you to discuss how to move forward with regards to our findings.

1. High mortality — 8 as opposed to our normal 2 to 3 per year
2. A commonality was that a particular nurse was on duty either leading up to or during. (this particular nurse commenced working on the unit in January 2012 without incident).
3. A doctor was also identified as a common theme however not as many as the nurse

Despite reviewing these cases there was nothing obvious that we were able to identify — therefore your input would be valued. I have been informed that Ian Harvey is aware that we have had an external thematic review.

Kindest regards
Eirian

 

[Tortoise]

From Alison Kelly's evidence to the Inquiry

[Q.] You had a meeting on 11 May of 2016 which included Dr Brearey; is that right?

A. That's correct, yes.

Q. He attended that meeting in his capacity as a Consultant paediatrician and the lead for the neonatal unit; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. He was concerned about the increase in neonatal mortality; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Among the things said by Dr Brearey at that meeting was that he had a concern that Letby may be the cause of that increase; is that correct?

A. We discussed at length the detail of the Thematic Review that he had undertaken with a number of colleagues including external stakeholders in addition to Eirian Powell's points that she had brought to that meeting. He never at that meeting talked about deliberate harm but he was worried about the increase in mortality.

Q. So we are just going to focus upon my question which didn't include the phrase "deliberate harm". It was that he was concerned that the increase in neonatal mortality may be due to Letby?

A. May be due to Letby, yes.
https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk...024/11/Thirlwall-Inquiry-25-November-2024.pdf


11 May 2016 was before the attempted murder of baby N and the murders of triplets O & P.

 

[Tortoise]

more from Alison Kelly at the Inquiry -

Q. Of course as to the issue of inadvertent or incompetent harm, you had very strong reassurance, didn't you, in that meeting from Eirian Powell and Anne Murphy that incompetence was unlikely?

A. Yes.

Q. Because they were telling you what a good nurse she was?

A. Yes.

Q. So on that basis if Dr Brearey was correct in his concern, or may be, if anything, does that not increase the fact the possibility that it is deliberate?

A. From his perspective there was a possibility that that was deliberate. But as we were talking through the information that we had to hand at that meeting, including detailed analysis of cases which pointed to some clinical issues, we were open at that meeting to what the causes could be. From a perspective -- from a nursing perspective, that could have been a competency issue.

Q. You were in a unique position that day in that meeting, weren't you, because you were the Executive Lead for Safeguarding?

A. Yes.

Q. The only safeguarding role person in the meeting?

A. Yes.

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk...024/11/Thirlwall-Inquiry-25-November-2024.pdf

 

[Tortoise]

Emails between Alison Kelly and Ian Harvey before their 11th May 2016 meeting, before babies N, O & P.

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0107818.pdf

 

[JosieJo]

Its only purpose was to show Letby was present at each of the events she was being charged for (minus the one where it transpired she was not on shift). Which we didn’t really need a chart for.

But it also showed that other nurses were on nowhere near that amount of suspicious shifts

 

[JosieJo]

How do you disregard the statistics so easily? Nobody is saying the prosecution spent a day outlining statistical arguments (the ridiculous shift chart aside).

The whole argument comes down to: was it coincidence or wasn’t it. Either you believe there are too many coincidences that it’s simply not possible she’s not guilty, or you believe it’s a series of coincidences where things have been twisted to point the finger of deliberate harm by an individual. The medical evidence is evidently up for debate, so what’s left if not statistical arguments?

Aswell as coincidence there was
Her Behaviour
The context of texts to colleagues
Facebook searches
Altered and or wrong documentation in clinical notes.
Her own time / testimony on the stand

 

[JosieJo]

I will never get out of my head the "timings" of these collapses. To me this is massive...working in a hospital you know a collapse can happen anytime...middle of visiting...middle of dinner ...even in the corridor or lift with a patient.

How on earth did not one of these unexpected collapses occur when parents or family or even their designated nurse was present

Virtually impossible !!!! In fact I'd say actually impossible

It's open visiting for parents

 

[Tortoise]

I will never get out of my head the "timings" of these collapses. To me this is massive...working in a hospital you know a collapse can happen anytime...middle of visiting...middle of dinner ...even in the corridor or lift with a patient.

How on earth did not one of these unexpected collapses occur when parents or family or even their designated nurse was present

Virtually impossible !!!! In fact I'd say actually impossible

It's open visiting for parents

The Letby signature for sure. As well as the two insulin poisonings that she set to continue only in the shifts directly following hers.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Aswell as coincidence there was
Her Behaviour
The context of texts to colleagues
Facebook searches
Altered and or wrong documentation in clinical notes.
Her own time / testimony on the stand

Yes!

The whole thrust of the "Lucy Letby is innocent" campaign strategy seems to be to knock down each particular piece of evidence by "proving" that it doesn't, of itself, demonstrate her guilt or, more precisely, that each piece of evidence has one or more alternate rational explanations.

And, yes, they'd be right on that - this is why it's called "circumstantial" evidence.

That is not how the evidence was presented, though. It was never the case that just because some of the evidence could have other explanations that she was innocent.

The whole of the evidence taken together and in the proper context of those events, ie; "the circumstances", presented in the prosecution's case, are what the jury was instructed to assess.

It is an assessment of the case in the whole which is what is needed and is precisely what the LL defenders repeatedly and consciously ignore.

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

If all they cared about was sharing shifts patterns across nursing staff, they could have presented it without the cartoon style row of X’s down the centre against Letby’s name. They could have simply said here’s the other staffing for the shifts relevant to this trial where Letby was present. It served a visual purpose, and was released to the media early on, as though it was supposed to be showing something.

Are you saying that the prosecution should have presented a list of the dates of collapses, then the schedules for all individual staff, and tasked the jury with creating their own charts? If this is not what you are saying please help me understand how you think this information ought to have been presented.

Or do you mean the blue highlight should have been omitted and dots used instead of x's?

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

Honestly I’m not sure anymore, but I do believe the former could be true.

What do you think about the meeting with Alison Kelly that Tortoise has posted on above?

 

[joltz]

I will never get out of my head the "timings" of these collapses. To me this is massive...working in a hospital you know a collapse can happen anytime...middle of visiting...middle of dinner ...even in the corridor or lift with a patient.

How on earth did not one of these unexpected collapses occur when parents or family or even their designated nurse was present

Virtually impossible !!!! In fact I'd say actually impossible

It's open visiting for parents

Exactly. Letby was either alone with the baby immediately beforehand, giving IV meds, or tending to the baby.

The frequency of collapses moments after a nurse takes and break, or a parent momentarily steps away after keeping vigil for hours is uncanny.

This is the type of evidence some people prefer to ignore
JMO

 

[crespo29]

15 whole life terms and they haven't worked out how she did it, and the jury had no reasonable doubt? The whole case stinks.

 

[Tortoise]

15 whole life terms and they haven't worked out how she did it, and the jury had no reasonable doubt? The whole case stinks.

Who hasn't worked out how she did it?