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]

I am very much interested in why the two doctors started looking for a killer in the unit. First, it is hard to rule out all objective factors if you are within a closed system because some of these factors might operate outside of the system. The doctors ruled objective reasons out too fast and started looking for a killer. Usually I would ask myself, paranoia? But of course I was not there.

One obvious question that comes to one’s mind.

Say, you are suspecting someone - not of killing, of mere stealing. What do you do?

Install a hidden camera.

Here, they suspected her of being a killer. Flawed statistics , of course that sheet is stupid. However, they can’t rule out the connection.

Why did they skip a camera? Then you know, “if”, and “how”. Heck, you can fire her for taking handout sheets home if it is on camera. That alone will be a gross violation.

Why couldn’t they install hidden cameras on the unit? You are not supposed to warn everyone. You don’t even need to explain Tony Chambers why you need it. You are investigating statistics, looking at people’s practices, suspecting someone of stealing, enough reasons.

Why not install hidden cameras above every cot, plus, one above the refrigerator, above a nursing station, etc?

Or send LL for additional training to a unit with pre-existing cameras, after all.

She went to Ibiza. Good time. They had pseudomonas and could close the unit for sanitary work for a few days. They already had great hidden cameras existing in 2015.

Or they could have moved her off the unit like they did and install cameras in the meantime. And return her when she complained.

Instead, they spent a lot of time thinking how she could kill the babies (still unproven! Still - there are good podcasts and will be more. Chances are, she didn’t do it because there are alternative explanations for each case. But even if she did, they can’t prove it, that’s the issue).

The taxpayers after all had to spend an unbelievable amount of money on the jury trial.

And now everyone involved is facing this train sliding back because this is what will happen. Inevitably. It will crash them. The whole world has already heard that Dr. Jay doesn’t know a clue about ventilation or neopuff. And that Dr. Breary has lacerated someone’s liver.

They don’t know if and how she did it and the deaths were not deemed suspicious when the babies died.

Sorry, no offence, but the whole idea of putting covert cameras everywhere without a single person in a busy hospital noticing is just beyond fantastical. Your idea even involves employing deception as to their reason for installing them.

Doctors do not occupy their hours playing amateuer detective!

 

[Charlot123]

Sorry, no offence, but the whole idea of putting covert cameras everywhere without a single person in a busy hospital noticing is just beyond fantastical. Your idea even involves employing deception as to their reason for installing them.

Doctors do not occupy their hours playing amateuer detective!

I don't think there is deception. I am pretty sure that there are cameras in many public places including hospitals.
I think that with such an approach, they are going to run into a problem sooner or later though. Because not a single case against her is airtight and the case is gaining attention. Let us watch.

 

[Anxala]

He wrote an opinion piece for the Times and the Telegraph picked it up. Because he's a retired Supreme Court judge, his views are bound to attract attention and carry some weight.

He's not stupid and he doesn't need the publicity. He knows the law, obviously, so why is he doing this? He's always written for the papers on a wide range of subjects, and I can only think he can't resist weighing in on a controversy.

Some people just like the sound of their own voices.

 

[JosieJo]

I don't think there is deception. I am pretty sure that there are cameras in many public places including hospitals.
I think that with such an approach, they are going to run into a problem sooner or later though. Because not a single case against her is airtight and the case is gaining attention. Let us watch.

No hospitals in the UK have CCTV inside wards/units

 

[Marantz4250b]

I don't think there is deception. I am pretty sure that there are cameras in many public places including hospitals.
I think that with such an approach, they are going to run into a problem sooner or later though. Because not a single case against her is airtight and the case is gaining attention. Let us watch.

You suggested that the doctors could deceive TC in order to get their cameras installed;

Why couldn’t they install hidden cameras on the unit? You are not supposed to warn everyone. You don’t even need to explain Tony Chambers why you need it. You are investigating statistics, looking at people’s practices, suspecting someone of stealing, enough reasons.

Leaving that aside, the whole issue of installing covert cameras is absurd, quite frankly. The data-protection issues alone make it a complete non-starter. Can you imagine what the upshot would be when it came out that you'd been covertly filming staff - let alone patients?

 

[joltz]

hes in the times as well Jonathan Sumption: Why I believe Lucy Letby is probably innocent

I don't think there is deception. I am pretty sure that there are cameras in many public places including hospitals.
I think that with such an approach, they are going to run into a problem sooner or later though. Because not a single case against her is airtight and the case is gaining attention. Let us watch.

You keep going on, but nothings really making any sense.

JMO

 

[marynnu]

I am very much interested in why the two doctors started looking for a killer in the unit. First, it is hard to rule out all objective factors if you are within a closed system because some of these factors might operate outside of the system. The doctors ruled objective reasons out too fast and started looking for a killer. Usually I would ask myself, paranoia? But of course I was not there.

One obvious question that comes to one’s mind.

Say, you are suspecting someone - not of killing, of mere stealing. What do you do?

Install a hidden camera.

Here, they suspected her of being a killer. Flawed statistics , of course that sheet is stupid. However, they can’t rule out the connection.

Why did they skip a camera? Then you know, “if”, and “how”. Heck, you can fire her for taking handout sheets home if it is on camera. That alone will be a gross violation.

Why couldn’t they install hidden cameras on the unit? You are not supposed to warn everyone. You don’t even need to explain Tony Chambers why you need it. You are investigating statistics, looking at people’s practices, suspecting someone of stealing, enough reasons.

Why not install hidden cameras above every cot, plus, one above the refrigerator, above a nursing station, etc?

Or send LL for additional training to a unit with pre-existing cameras, after all.

She went to Ibiza. Good time. They had pseudomonas and could close the unit for sanitary work for a few days. They already had great hidden cameras existing in 2015.

Or they could have moved her off the unit like they did and install cameras in the meantime. And return her when she complained.

Instead, they spent a lot of time thinking how she could kill the babies (still unproven! Still - there are good podcasts and will be more. Chances are, she didn’t do it because there are alternative explanations for each case. But even if she did, they can’t prove it, that’s the issue).

The taxpayers after all had to spend an unbelievable amount of money on the jury trial.

And now everyone involved is facing this train sliding back because this is what will happen. Inevitably. It will crash them. The whole world has already heard that Dr. Jay doesn’t know a clue about ventilation or neopuff. And that Dr. Breary has lacerated someone’s liver.

They don’t know if and how she did it and the deaths were not deemed suspicious when the babies died.

Firstly, they did not go looking for a killer.
Who exactly are suggesting should install hidden cameras? The very idea that this could be done secretly in a clinical area, especially one like NNU, is ridiculous.
Why on earth would you think Dr. J doesn't know about ventilation or the neopuff? That's an outrageous claim.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Firstly, they did not go looking for a killer.
Who exactly are suggesting should install hidden cameras? The very idea that this could be done secretly in a clinical area, especially one like NNU, is ridiculous.
Why on earth would you think Dr. J doesn't know about ventilation or the neopuff? That's an outrageous claim.

The Thirlwall inquiry has very much pushed that CCTV installation should be considered as an outcome- albeit not a very popular one when people were asked if it would have helped. Ridiculous or not it may become a reality. In most normal wards it’s not as though you have much privacy anyway, as a patient I’m not sure I would object to the idea- for the staff though I would imagine it would give a massive amount of pressure at first until it became normalised- doctors and nurses do make mistakes, not intentionally but just because they are human, and these would now be caught on camera. That being said there used to be the same objection to CCTV installation in schools and now it is pretty commonplace, at least in communal areas.
Whilst I don’t think setting up secret cameras would have been practical- I do agree with the general point of the post- it is easy to say with hindsight yes we knew, but didn’t have the foresight to double check any notes for errors (but we will point them out later on), we won’t bother the coroner with all the information, or even make referrals and we definitely won’t double check they have been recorded as unexpected deaths. I’m also well aware many on here disagree with my opinion that they should have done more- but they could have done, they did the minimum as whistle blowers and ultimately did nothing and have never mentioned anything with regards safeguarding. Their apologies are weak- we are sorry we didn’t do more, but were constrained by management and literally couldn’t do more than we did. The doctors who weren’t privy to the conversations, the nurses who had no suspicions or idea- they all have attempted some form of self reflection through their testimonies and witness statements to the inquiry. It may be how it’s portrayed by the media- but my take of their self reflection is we did what we could and its management who need to change. From the outside, that still wouldn’t have been enough.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Former Cumbrian director of health voices concerns over Lucy Letby conviction

A FORMER Cumbrian health chief is among the growing body of medical professionals who believe Lucy Letby’s murder convictions are unsafe.

www.newsandstar.co.uk

I don’t whole heartedly agree with everything in this article and perhaps it is the press offering money to get an article, but there seems to be a lot of professionals taking the offer. I struggle to see how all these professionals would comply and offer articles and interviews if they doubted their opinion, or perhaps it’s herd mentality?

 

[Sweeper2000]

its actually probably just a reaction to hearing of the currently dismantled press conference. maybe that was the intended purpose of it. It also seems to be from people who heard it and actually just believed it and need closer inspection of its contents. it seems here on ws weve gone over it with a fine tooth comb and found it not really applicable and I would guess the courts will do the same as thats their jobs, those offering opinions will likely not have done the same. jmo

 

[Tortoise]

You suggested that the doctors could deceive TC in order to get their cameras installed;

Why couldn’t they install hidden cameras on the unit? You are not supposed to warn everyone. You don’t even need to explain Tony Chambers why you need it. You are investigating statistics, looking at people’s practices, suspecting someone of stealing, enough reasons.

Leaving that aside, the whole issue of installing covert cameras is absurd, quite frankly. The data-protection issues alone make it a complete non-starter. Can you imagine what the upshot would be when it came out that you'd been covertly filming staff - let alone patients?

Also, it would have been entirely inappropriate to install cctv with the aim of catching a killer. That is putting lives at risk. Try explaining that to a parent of a dead child!

The consultants acted to have LL removed (the only acceptable course of action) when the two triplets died and they were not satisfied that the internal and external reviews of care they had undertaken, and post mortems, were providing the reasons for the deaths. Bearing in mind the insulin poisonings had been missed because the babies had recovered and not all of the attempted murders were flagged up like the deaths were.

 

[Moll]

Former Cumbrian director of health voices concerns over Lucy Letby conviction

A FORMER Cumbrian health chief is among the growing body of medical professionals who believe Lucy Letby’s murder convictions are unsafe.

www.newsandstar.co.uk

I don’t whole heartedly agree with everything in this article and perhaps it is the press offering money to get an article, but there seems to be a lot of professionals taking the offer. I struggle to see how all these professionals would comply and offer articles and interviews if they doubted their opinion, or perhaps it’s herd mentality?

Professor Ashton seems particularly unconvincing. He is a retired public health specialist who according to the article 'believes Letby may have been "scapegoated.”

He said: “There was junk science presented at her trial: junk science in the insulin evidence, junk science in the statistics evidence, and junk science in the injected air story."

Ashton rejects the evidence of the paediatrician called by the prosecution, and said it was remarkable the babies’ clinical notes did not feature in the trial, though they were reviewed by Dr Lee’s expert panel.'


Remarkably intemperate language, as well as inaccurate.

 

[Tortoise]

Professor Ashton seems particularly unconvincing. He is a retired public health specialist who according to the article 'believes Letby may have been "scapegoated.”

He said: “There was junk science presented at her trial: junk science in the insulin evidence, junk science in the statistics evidence, and junk science in the injected air story."

Ashton rejects the evidence of the paediatrician called by the prosecution, and said it was remarkable the babies’ clinical notes did not feature in the trial, though they were reviewed by Dr Lee’s expert panel.'

Former Cumbrian director of health voices concerns over Lucy Letby conviction

A FORMER Cumbrian health chief is among the growing body of medical professionals who believe Lucy Letby’s murder convictions are unsafe.

www.newsandstar.co.uk

Remarkably intemperate language, as well as inaccurate.

He's not bothered with the facts. This is where good journalism matters, because the journo should have quoted what the Prof had to say, and tempered it with actual facts from the trials.

He thinks -

- LL's note was written under encouragement contrary to her testimony
- the notes were instrumental in the case when clearly they were not, with several not guilty/hung verdicts
- she was only on duty for half the cases (just like David Davis!)
- more air would have been needed to kill a neonate!
- a doctor damaged baby O's liver
- he is an expert on insulin.

It's just more noise from clambering up on the bandwagon, which will have no effect on the appeal court.

It's not fact based, so it should have no place being linked at WS without being called out for the entire pile of drivel that it is.

JMO

 

[Parker Knoll]

According to Reuters it’s being filed and lodged tomorrow.
I read that and immediately burst into the song from Annie.
Letby must be laughing her head off in her 6 x 4’ cell.

 

[Moll]

According to Reuters it’s being filed and lodged tomorrow.
I read that and immediately burst into the song from Annie.
Letby must be laughing her head off in her 6 x 4’ cell.

In the Mail too:

Letby lawyer to deliver 'fresh evidence' to commission reviewing case

Mark McDonald (right) said he would be presenting the 'fresh evidence' to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, at its headquarters in Birmingham at 12pm.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Which song?

 

[Parker Knoll]

This one …. I can’t stop singing it now ANNOYINGLY !

 

[Tortoise]

The top police officer investigating serial baby killer Lucy Letby today hit back at ‘ill-informed’ and ‘insensitive’ critics questioning her guilt.

In a strongly worded statement, Detective Superintendent Paul Hughes insisted the former neo-natal nurse’s case had been ‘rigorously and fairly tested’ by two juries and two sets of appeal court judges after a painstaking and complex six-year police investigation.

Yet still his inquiry, the judicial process and the medical experts who gave evidence at the former neo-natal nurse’s trial are being scrutinised by ‘ill-informed’ critics with ‘very partial knowledge of the facts and totality of the evidence,’ the senior officer said.

[...]

‘As the case unfolded, multiple medical experts – specialising in areas of paediatric radiology, paediatric pathology, haematology, paediatric neurology and paediatric endocrinology and two main medical experts (consultant paediatricians) – were enlisted to ensure that we carried out as thorough an investigation as possible.

‘All are highly regarded in their area of expertise and were cross examined whilst giving their evidence in court.’

[...]

Mr Hughes said Cheshire Constabulary was ‘ready to support the CCRC and any appropriate review processes in order to inform any questions that may arise.’

‘Our priority is to maintain the integrity of our ongoing investigations and to continue to support the many families who are affected by this,’ he added.

Police hit out at 'ill-informed' Lucy Letby supporters

Detective Superintendent Paul Hughes insisted Lucy Letby's case had been 'rigorously and fairly tested' by two juries and two sets of appeal court judges.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[mrC]

It's funny in most cases the police dont feel the need to comment like that the starment sounds rather like desperation

 

[katydid23]

I am very much interested in why the two doctors started looking for a killer in the unit.

Because there were TWENTY SEVEN unexplained collapses of babies in the unit.

First, it is hard to rule out all objective factors if you are within a closed system because some of these factors might operate outside of the system. The doctors ruled objective reasons out too fast

NO they didn't----they are actually too slow. Lots of extra injuries and deaths happened because they didnt move fast enough.

and started looking for a killer. Usually I would ask myself, paranoia? But of course I was not there.

Paranoia? Are you serious?

One obvious question that comes to one’s mind.

Say, you are suspecting someone - not of killing, of mere stealing. What do you do?

Install a hidden camera.

The doctors demanded that cameras be installed---the Union reps were very against it and so were the administrators. It was cost prohibitive and was against protocol and privacy concerns.

Here, they suspected her of being a killer. Flawed statistics , of course that sheet is stupid. However, they can’t rule out the connection.

The statistics were not flawed. The 'connection' was and is correct.

Why did they skip a camera? Then you know, “if”, and “how”. Heck, you can fire her for taking handout sheets home if it is on camera. That alone will be a gross violation.

Why couldn’t they install hidden cameras on the unit? You are not supposed to warn everyone. You don’t even need to explain Tony Chambers why you need it. You are investigating statistics, looking at people’s practices, suspecting someone of stealing, enough reasons.

That^^^ is incorrect----you cannot just put up dozens of cameras in a place where privacy is warranted.

Why not install hidden cameras above every cot, plus, one above the refrigerator, above a nursing station, etc?

That is a very pricey solution AND it goes against legal protocol concerning patient's privacy rights and employee's rights.

Or send LL for additional training to a unit with pre-existing cameras, after all.

Her union reps fought back. legally, against everything the hospital tried to do to monitor Nurse Letby.

She went to Ibiza. Good time. They had pseudomonas and could close the unit for sanitary work for a few days. They already had great hidden cameras existing in 2015.

Or they could have moved her off the unit like they did and install cameras in the meantime. And return her when she complained.

Again, the doctors made that demand and they were denied.

Instead, they spent a lot of time thinking how she could kill the babies (still unproven!

No, it was not unproven. It was legally proven that she was GUILTY as charged.

Still - there are good podcasts and will be more. Chances are, she didn’t do it because there are alternative explanations for each case.

That means nothing. Just because someone can come up with an alternative reality as an explanation, does not mean that she is innocent.

There were 27 unexplained sudden collapses. No way that each one was just an unusual strange circumstance that had a weird explanation and Lucy just happened to have false records she created for some of them.

But even if she did, they can’t prove it, that’s the issue).

YES, they can and they did. Past tense.

The taxpayers after all had to spend an unbelievable amount of money on the jury trial.

And now everyone involved is facing this train sliding back because this is what will happen. Inevitably. It will crash them. The whole world has already heard that Dr. Jay doesn’t know a clue about ventilation or neopuff. And that Dr. Breary has lacerated someone’s liver.

Dr Breary did not lacerate anyone's liver. The defense has already dropped that fake accusation.

They don’t know if and how she did it and the deaths were not deemed suspicious when the babies died.

They do know 'if' she did it. Read the charges and the evidence. The deaths were eventually deemed suspicious, obviously. That's how the charges came about.

 

[JosieJo]

It's funny in most cases the police dont feel the need to comment like that the starment sounds rather like desperation

To be honest to me it sounds like he was asked for a comment around the upcoming submission