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]

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.

So not impopossible then ? lol theres plenty of scope to do as is alleged without being seen. I dont think the nurses work two to a bab do they? or even two to a room? I know theres ratios but not sure. think its two for room one whch had a capcity of 4 babs right? and room 1 is highest intensity care. arent the other ooms like 6 to a room or sumfin?

 

[mrC]

i wonder what the nurse who was on duty with her said was she called to give evdence if not why not

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0003190_1,2,3,4.pdf

 

[katydid23]

So not impopossible then ? lol theres plenty of scope to do as is alleged without being seen. I dont think the nurses work two to a bab do they? or even two to a room? I know theres ratios but not sure. think its two for room one whch had a capcity of 4 babs right? and room 1 is highest intensity care. arent the other ooms like 6 to a room or sumfin?

I think it's usually 2 to a room, but each one takes a short and long break each shift.

Remember in the beginning cases, designated nurses would go on dinner break and ask LL to watch their patients---only to come back to LL assisting in resuscitations.

That happened a couple of times, IIRC, but LL began to switch it up after that ---maybe because it was too suspicious I guess.

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

Dr. Oliver has posted another excellent video, this time about the insulin evidence. In this video she uses transcripts that CS2C has purchased as well as clips from Dr. Lee's press conference. I'm not sure if she is considered an accepted source but I have found her YouTube channel Back to the Science to be accurate and accessible.

 

[katydid23]

i wonder what the nurse who was on duty with her said was she called to give evdence if not why not

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0003190_1,2,3,4.pdf

What evidence would there be? Allowing air into an IV line can be done quickly, silently and invisibly. No one would see or know anything. That's how she got away with it for so long.

 

[joltz]

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

It makes me very comfortable to know that the people who claim Letby are innocent are the ones that get everything wrong, refuse to budge on their beliefs and make incorrect claims, which they cannot back up.

JMO

 

[joltz]

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

It was clearly shown that she was. There's no debate.

JMO

 

[Charlot123]

I don't think this makes sense. The collapses themselves did not make sense. That's not statistical. They happened at times thar didn't make sense, to babies that didn't make sense, and when resuscitation was started, it didn't progress the way it should have. That's not math. That's just real life.

I started typing about logical fallacies and peculiar mentality of a doctor who started looking at nurses as potential culprits for increased NICU mortality...and stopped. This case, MOO, is not what it seems.

Consider this:

1) the case started with "who did it?" related to increased NICU mortality, as evidenced by that spreadsheet. And then, a "connection" with LL was noticed, and only then came the question "how did she do it?" Air embolism was not a finding but a suggested strategy, hence the "Lee sign", etc. IMO, they are still not sure, how, but are convinced that she did.

2) The hospital executives' disbelief notwithstanding, one fact is crucial: by the time the doctors took it outside the unit, both had to be fully convinced that their suspicion was true. Thinking "we have a killer in NICU" doesn't happen in a day. So: what made the doctors so sure of planned human, any human, involvement in babies' deaths to start with?

3) highly unusual for a colleague, be it a nurse or a doctor, to be accused of being a killer. Anything, negligence, laziness, philandering, corruption, unprofessionalism, drinking, all nine yards, medics get it. A killer? Unthinkable.

So: to me it would appear that
the whole case must have started with someone else's personal suspicion formed earlier. It could have followed LL to COCH.

Also: high percentage of dislodged tubes during Lucy's training didn't come out of nowhere. To me, it is the only solid statistic fact available for the whole case. Much better than NICU spreadsheet.

So JMO, MOO, etc: There might have been vague suspicions about LL formed earlier, and not among COCH doctors. But as nothing could be proven, people could end up asking themselves, "am i paranoid to think of it?" And then, with Lucy moving to COCH, at first, things were fine there, but in several years, this peak happened. Maybe less of a peak and more, change in the behavior. Medical personnel communicates; some pieces must have formed a puzzle.

This is the only logical way I can explain this case. Nothing else makes sense. It feels strange. I am dismissing all what Lucy wrote and her handout sheets, too. However, I can't but notice the inconsistencies of the story, even the trial, unless I accept the obvious.

However, no one ever caught LL. Even remotely. Even the insulin case might be falling apart and opinions diverge. And, with all suspicions, Lucy could have simply been a misunderstood, klutzy nurse. The whole case is incredibly far from airtight. It is often the pattern in trials basing on insiders' information, but this one is put together clumsily and generates more of questions. Some additional information might have been provided to the jury, if any, but we the public don't have it. And lastly, there is always a chance that someone suspecting Lucy is merely paranoid. She could have been negligent, obsessive, distracted by a doctor's attention, immature, and more, without intent to kill.

MOO: the case clearly calls for a very thorough review by a good UK expert panel who will be privy to all facts. And also, good statistics could be helpful. Putting a young woman behind bars for life in no way can lodge on a unit spreadsheet or on a professional trial witness fifteen years out of any touch with real medicine.

 

[joltz]

I started typing about logical fallacies and peculiar mentality of a doctor who started looking at nurses as potential culprits for increased NICU mortality...and stopped. This case, MOO, is not what it seems.

Consider this:

1) the case started with "who did it?" related to increased NICU mortality, as evidenced by that spreadsheet. And then, a "connection" with LL was noticed, and only then came the question "how did she do it?" Air embolism was not a finding but a suggested strategy, hence the "Lee sign", etc. IMO, they are still not sure, how, but are convinced that she did.

2) The hospital executives' disbelief notwithstanding, one fact is crucial: by the time the doctors took it outside the unit, both had to be fully convinced that their suspicion was true. Thinking "we have a killer in NICU" doesn't happen in a day. So: what made the doctors so sure of planned human, any human, involvement in babies' deaths to start with?

3) highly unusual for a colleague, be it a nurse or a doctor, to be accused of being a killer. Anything, negligence, laziness, philandering, corruption, unprofessionalism, drinking, all nine yards, medics get it. A killer? Unthinkable.

So: to me it would appear that
the whole case must have started with someone else's personal suspicion formed earlier. It could have followed LL to COCH.

Also: high percentage of dislodged tubes during Lucy's training didn't come out of nowhere. To me, it is the only solid statistic fact available for the whole case. Much better than NICU spreadsheet.

So JMO, MOO, etc: There might have been vague suspicions about LL formed earlier, and not among COCH doctors. But as nothing could be proven, people could end up asking themselves, "am i paranoid to think of it?" And then, with Lucy moving to COCH, at first, things were fine there, but in several years, this peak happened. Maybe less of a peak and more, change in the behavior. Medical personnel communicates; some pieces must have formed a puzzle.

This is the only logical way I can explain this case. Nothing else makes sense. It feels strange. I am dismissing all what Lucy wrote and her handout sheets, too. However, I can't but notice the inconsistencies of the story, even the trial, unless I accept the obvious.

However, no one ever caught LL. Even remotely. Even the insulin case might be falling apart and opinions diverge. And, with all suspicions, Lucy could have simply been a misunderstood, klutzy nurse. The whole case is incredibly far from airtight. It is often the pattern in trials basing on insiders' information, but this one is put together clumsily and generates more of questions. Some additional information might have been provided to the jury, if any, but we the public don't have it. And lastly, there is always a chance that someone suspecting Lucy is merely paranoid. She could have been negligent, obsessive, distracted by a doctor's attention, immature, and more, without intent to kill.

MOO: the case clearly calls for a very thorough review by a good UK expert panel who will be privy to all facts. And also, good statistics could be helpful. Putting a young woman behind bars for life in no way can lodge on a unit spreadsheet or on a professional trial witness fifteen years out of any touch with real medicine.

"Putting a young woman behind bars for life in no way can lodge on a unit spreadsheet or on a professional trial witness fifteen years out of any touch with real medicine'

Just as well that it didn't then and as has has been stated previously: Our UK justice system isn't designed to appease random people that have decided they aren't convinced.

 

[Charlot123]

"Putting a young woman behind bars for life in no way can lodge on a unit spreadsheet or on a professional trial witness fifteen years out of any touch with real medicine'

Just as well that it didn't then and as has has been stated previously: Our UK justice system isn't designed to appease random people that have decided they aren't convinced.

I thought it was about something different, though. I am convinced that there had been some suspicions about LL during her training. Otherwise, hard to imagine a doctor's thinking process be like: "despite all that we do, babies are dying in the unit. So, who's the killer?" Maybe there is even more direct information about LL. But since nothing like this has been explained to the public, people remain perplexed.

Random people, called, "the public", have the right to remain unconvinced. In LL's case, however, it comes to sheer practicality. What we see is that the decision of the trial is now being seriously questioned by an international panel of experts including British ones. These people are not random. You can't brush it off the table or deny. In some prior UK cases, such as SIDS ones, respected trial experts have made a total mincemeat out of statistics. The courts who did not invite real statisticians now look bleak. The justices can make mistakes; some, however, are costly. I don't know the amount of payouts UK system allows, but surely, there is some? Now, LL's case is far, far larger than the SIDS ones. IMHO, it is better to dot all "i's" now than be presented by additional information and having to pay humongous compensations later.

 

[katydid23]

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.

NO, her lies were not based upon things she was asked about from 6 years earlier.

Her lies in the Baby E case were lies she wrote in her notes, on the very day he died. Nothing about recollecting 6 years later. She created that lie an hour after she was caught ignoring a screaming, bleeding baby, by the baby's mom. LL falsified her medical notes IN REAL TIME.

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.

We can see categorically and specifically that Baby E began bleeding out at 9 pm, just as his mother witnessed. There is no doubt that he suffered great harm.

LL did NOTHING to stop that active bleeding, and sent the mom away. LL waited 45 minutes to call in a doctor and then she didn't even report the bleeding from his mouth at 9 pm. She minimised it by putting in her nots that the baby had flecks of blood in his diaper, a much less urgent situation.

So we can clearly determine that those lies and inconsistencies in LL's notes created great harm due to resulting inaction. That poor child died a few hours later after bleeding out and losing 1/4 of his total blood supply.

I thought it was about something different, though. I am convinced that there had been some suspicions about LL during her training. Otherwise, hard to imagine a doctor's thinking process be like: "despite all that we do, babies are dying in the unit. So, who's the killer?"

That^^^ is not what the doctors thinking process was in these cases. They DID NOT think 'who's the killer? '

They had action meetings after every tragic event, with the nurses and doctors, who came together to try and determine what happened. They discussed every detail that could remember, turned in copies of their notes of the event, and asked each other questions about what seemed to go wrong.

They were focused upon potential viral infections, toxic chemicals, faulty equipment, poorly trained new staff, poor training, something wrong with the environment or cleaning staff, staff fatigue, understaffing issues....

They spent over a year looking at all of the above before anyone looked seriously at possible malicious intent by staff.

 

[May72031]

Random people, called, "the public", have the right to remain unconvinced. In LL's case, however, it comes to sheer practicality. What we see is that the decision of the trial is now being seriously questioned by an international panel of experts including British ones. These people are not random. You can't brush it off the table or deny. In some prior UK cases, such as SIDS ones, respected trial experts have made a total mincemeat out of statistics. The courts who did not invite real statisticians now look bleak. The justices can make mistakes; some, however, are costly. I don't know the amount of payouts UK system allows, but surely, there is some? Now, LL's case is far, far larger than the SIDS ones. IMHO, it is better to dot all "i's" now than be presented by additional information and having to pay humongous compensations later.

Well, "the public" also has the right to believe no planes hit the WTC towers on 9/11, or that Sandy Hook was some sort of "false flag". The fact that some sections of the public believe something, doesn't mean anything.

The doubts put forth so far from Letbyists remain totally unconvincing and contradictory.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Dr. Oliver has posted another excellent video, this time about the insulin evidence. In this video she uses transcripts that CS2C has purchased as well as clips from Dr. Lee's press conference. I'm not sure if she is considered an accepted source but I have found her YouTube channel Back to the Science to be accurate and accessible.

its interesting actually, she uses a paper in which a contributor was one of the new panels experts. prof geoff chase was actually the guy who recorded the normal insulin/c peptide levels for neonates in that paper and the recorded levels are not in line with the recordings proving that insulin was administered, this goes against what Dr Lee was saying in the conference and it beggars belief. she seems quite spot on and easy to follow for what is a complex subject.

 

[Baileyboo]

its interesting actually, she uses a paper in which a contributor was one of the new panels experts. prof geoff chase was actually the guy who recorded the normal insulin/c peptide levels for neonates in that paper and the recorded levels are not in line with the recordings proving that insulin was administered, this goes against what Dr Lee was saying in the conference and it beggars belief. she seems quite spot on and easy to follow for what is a complex subject.

It's strange. The panel of experts know some of what they are saying about baby F is plain wrong but state it anyway! Do they think no one will bother checking their facts but trust them because they are "experts".

 

[Sweeper2000]

It's strange. The panel of experts know some of what they are saying about baby F is plain wrong but state it anyway! Do they think no one will bother checking their facts but trust them because they are "experts".

that's such a strange thing ive yet to see anyone provide a coherent, logical and truthful counter to the prosecution and must assume that there isn't one. its absolutely fine perhaps necessary to try and see if there is indeed something wrong with it but if after numerous attempts end in failure one must assume justice was served. I mean if that panel can't do it noone can. jmo.

 

[Charlot123]

Well, "the public" also has the right to believe no planes hit the WTC towers on 9/11, or that Sandy Hook was some sort of "false flag". The fact that some sections of the public believe something, doesn't mean anything.

The doubts put forth so far from Letbyists remain totally unconvincing and contradictory.

Definitely they don’t apply to me; in my time, I loved the books of Chris Hitchens and followed Sam Harris.

And to remember, the relationship between the late Christopher and his brother Peter who is now writing articles in support of Lucy Letby was complex. Yet as I am reading the interview of the brothers at the Guardian Hay Festival, I am thinking: four years of a hiatus in their relationship, and yet, they talk, despite diverging outlooks, graciously communicate, and listen. Importantly, they don’t even think of depriving each other of the right to regard the same situation in an autonomous way. Ultimately, out of their different positions, presented with respect and ability to listen, so many new ideas can be extracted. Even from that tiny article.

Twenty years later, I, a person who adored Christopher Hitchens’ books, am not subscribing to “who is not with us, is a conspiracy theorist” mentality. First, it is not helping the discussion and then, oh boy… “She doesn’t subscribe to LL’s guilt, so, probably she is into 9/11 conspiracy, Sandi Hook conspiracy, and a Letbyist”.

Do you believe that since the international panel led by a Harvard-educated professor did not agree with Dewi Evans, that, by default, also puts them into WTC and Handy Hook conspiracy theorists group? Or are these terms, so to say, for “internal use”?

I hope that people of the country that has provided us with so many illuminating writers and journalists, can and will do better than “Letbyists”.

 

[Moll]

Dr. Oliver has posted another excellent video, this time about the insulin evidence. In this video she uses transcripts that CS2C has purchased as well as clips from Dr. Lee's press conference. I'm not sure if she is considered an accepted source but I have found her YouTube channel Back to the Science to be accurate and accessible.

Thank you very much for this. I found it very convincing indeed and that's despite being - as a grumpy old non-doggie person - initially put off by the dog and Dr Oliver's constant wide smile (men aren't expected to smile all the time but women it seems are, so I do understand it).

Among other things it reminded me (thanks to her use of CS2C's transcripts) just how painstaking was the detail of the medical evidence produced during the trial. As she said, why does Professor Shoo Lee present Professor Chase - primarily an engineer as we noted a long time ago - as if he knew far more about neonatal levels of insulin and C-peptide than the neonatologist Professor Hindmarsh, who gave clear evidence at the trial?

OK, there was a lot I didn't really understand properly, but there were clear inconsistencies and flaws all the way though Lee's presentation of the insulin poisonings that Dr Oliver has brought out most damningly.

 

[Tortoise]

NO, her lies were not based upon things she was asked about from 6 years earlier.

Her lies in the Baby E case were lies she wrote in her notes, on the very day he died. Nothing about recollecting 6 years later. She created that lie an hour after she was caught ignoring a screaming, bleeding baby, by the baby's mom. LL falsified her medical notes IN REAL TIME.



We can see categorically and specifically that Baby E began bleeding out at 9 pm, just as his mother witnessed. There is no doubt that he suffered great harm.

LL did NOTHING to stop that active bleeding, and sent the mom away. LL waited 45 minutes to call in a doctor and then she didn't even report the bleeding from his mouth at 9 pm. She minimised it by putting in her nots that the baby had flecks of blood in his diaper, a much less urgent situation.

So we can clearly determine that those lies and inconsistencies in LL's notes created great harm due to resulting inaction. That poor child died a few hours later after bleeding out and losing 1/4 of his total blood supply.



That^^^ is not what the doctors thinking process was in these cases. They DID NOT think 'who's the killer? '

They had action meetings after every tragic event, with the nurses and doctors, who came together to try and determine what happened. They discussed every detail that could remember, turned in copies of their notes of the event, and asked each other questions about what seemed to go wrong.

They were focused upon potential viral infections, toxic chemicals, faulty equipment, poorly trained new staff, poor training, something wrong with the environment or cleaning staff, staff fatigue, understaffing issues....

They spent over a year looking at all of the above before anyone looked seriously at possible malicious intent by staff.

Thanks Katydid. I just want to correct one small thing about the blood flecks. It was that Dr Harkness testified he saw miniscule blood flecks or bile (in an aspirate) at around 10pm when the NG tube was removed from baby E.

Letby lied in her defence statement about having noted blood in the baby's nappy after he was deceased and she went to bathe him.

I've transcribed it below, from approved video of @CS2C .

Timestamp 4.20.00

Court transcript of Letby’s cross-examination -

Mr Johnson KC: Paragraph 75 please, of the defence statement. What does that say?

LL: "After child E had died I found blood in his nappy."

NJ KC: Have you said that in evidence yet?

LL: I don’t recall.

NJ KC: I’m going to suggest you haven’t.

LL: Okay.

NJ KC: Is it true?

LL: Yes.

NJ KC: What did you do about it?

LL: It was after death. We went to bath him after his death and there was blood in the nappy.

NJ KC: The question though is what did you do about it?

LL: It’s written in my nursing notes. I don’t recall doing anything else about it because child E was deceased at the time.

NJ KC: And which nursing notes did you write it in?

LL: I think I’ve written it in my nursing notes.

NJ KC: Since we last met, have you been looking at the evidence in child E’s case?

LL: Yes.

NJ KC: Have you been looking at your nursing notes anticipating that I might ask you a question or two about them?

LL: Yes.

NJ KC: Does it say in the nursing notes that there was blood in the nappy?

LL: I can’t recall.

NJ KC: Oh I think you can. Why don’t you tell the jury?

LL: No, I can’t remember.

NJ KC: Let me give you a copy of your nursing notes. My Lord I’m going to give a copy of this to the jury as well please, because what we’re going to do is to compare what’s in the nursing notes to what’s in some other documents. Perhaps out of fairness to the witness I can hand her a copy now. She can read it during the break and then when we come back we can deal with this point. Alright, so you have an opportunity now to read through that so that you can refresh your memory from what’s in that document. And we’ll have it when we resume in 15 minutes please. [break taken]

NJ KC: First of all, have you had an opportunity to read your notes?

LL: Yes.

NJ KC: Do they mention blood in the nappy?

LL: No.

NJ KC: I’m going to suggest to you that when you said just before the break that you had put it in your nursing notes, you knew that wasn’t true?

LL: No. I couldn’t recall my notes specifically at that time.

 

[Tortoise]

In case anyone finds it useful, @CS2C did an amazing job narrating the over 15 hours of Letby's entire cross-examination, split into two parts. And beneath the videos, in pinned posts, he gave the timestamps for anyone searching for specific parts.

Part one:

Part two:

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

I started typing about logical fallacies and peculiar mentality of a doctor who started looking at nurses as potential culprits for increased NICU mortality...and stopped. This case, MOO, is not what it seems.

Consider this:

1) the case started with "who did it?" related to increased NICU mortality, as evidenced by that spreadsheet. And then, a "connection" with LL was noticed, and only then came the question "how did she do it?" Air embolism was not a finding but a suggested strategy, hence the "Lee sign", etc. IMO, they are still not sure, how, but are convinced that she did.

2) The hospital executives' disbelief notwithstanding, one fact is crucial: by the time the doctors took it outside the unit, both had to be fully convinced that their suspicion was true. Thinking "we have a killer in NICU" doesn't happen in a day. So: what made the doctors so sure of planned human, any human, involvement in babies' deaths to start with?

3) highly unusual for a colleague, be it a nurse or a doctor, to be accused of being a killer. Anything, negligence, laziness, philandering, corruption, unprofessionalism, drinking, all nine yards, medics get it. A killer? Unthinkable.

You're so close, Charlot. The answers you've come up with are wrong but you're asking the right questions. The answers are in the trial. And even more in the Inquiry.

But she wasn't a clutzy nurse. She was malicious. And the insulin evidence hasn't fallen apart. She had a trial and an excellent professional defense doing the best they could with what they had. She appealed. She can go to the CCRC. But she's not going anywhere because there is no new evidence. Just smoke and hand waving.