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

[Tortoise]

jayram said he saw lucy trying to harm a baby but hes previos statement said there was no evidence against her

Link please, for Dr Jayaram saying he saw LL trying to harm a baby.

 

[katydid23]

jayram said he saw lucy trying to harm a baby but hes previos statement said there was no evidence against her

I don't remember him saying he saw her 'doing harm' ----However, Dr J did see a very suspicious situation---he walked into the nursery and saw that a preemie was unresponsive---and Nurse L was doing nothing in response to help the baby. Her explanation was that she was waiting to see if the baby would self recover.

Many people, including myself, would consider that her standing by doing nothing while a baby was going into a collapse, was doing the baby harm. She should have sounded the alarm to get help, instead of standing by doing nothing. IMO

 

[Marantz4250b]

jayram said he saw lucy trying to harm a baby but hes previos statement said there was no evidence against her

What is your source for that statement?

 

[Charlot123]

Please explain how it is at variance with his story. The jury knew about the correct swipe data and found on the facts, including the swipe data, he was telling the truth.


Do you have an approved link for the outcome of the lab "failed quality control" please.


Again, link please.

Here is link to insulin test and Liverpool lab failure

If you can’t open it I have to look elsewhere but - it is everywhere in MSM

Insulin Test Used to Convict Lucy Letby in Babies’ Deaths Was Unreliable, Experts Say

A new report by neonatal and toxicology experts casts doubt on the test results that were pivotal to the case against the British nurse.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Charlot123]

Please explain how it is at variance with his story. The jury knew about the correct swipe data and found on the facts, including the swipe data, he was telling the truth.


Do you have an approved link for the outcome of the lab "failed quality control" please.


Again, link please.

About Ravi Jay’s statement being at variance with door swipe data

CPS admits it made mistakes with Lucy Letby evidence

Last year 'killer nurse' Lucy Letby was found guilty of the murder of seven babies and the attempted murder of six others at the Countess of Chester Hospital.

www.dailymail.co.uk

BTW

<modsnip - not approved sources>

 

[Tortoise]

Here is link to insulin test and Liverpool lab failure

If you can’t open it I have to look elsewhere but - it is everywhere in MSM

Insulin Test Used to Convict Lucy Letby in Babies’ Deaths Was Unreliable, Experts Say

A new report by neonatal and toxicology experts casts doubt on the test results that were pivotal to the case against the British nurse.

www.nytimes.com

You said the Liverpool lab failed quality control. That is not what the article, or the experts are saying. This is the claim -

"e) Quality Control testing information was not revealed to the Court in expert witness evidence. The results showed a quality control test with high insulin and a low C-peptide."

That is all that's been released. McDonald/his experts are not claiming that this was not disclosed to the defence, they are saying it wasn't brought forth in testimony. And they are not claiming that the defence failed to provide her with adequate representation.

Therefore, since it was disclosed a/ it is not new evidence, and b/since the director Gwen Wark was cross-examined on quality control and the testimony was that the lab was performing reliably, there is nothing here to say one way or the other that the outcome of the quality control checks was that the lab failed. There could have been an explanation for it which didn't involve test failure (such as data input error), and therefore had no relevance for the jury.

This is information that was not hidden, it was available to the crown, and to the defence, and their work, as evidenced in the trial, was nothing short of meticulous. It is very hard to believe that the director of quality control when preparing for court just decided to not mention it, and testify to false effect, and that both sides had this information and just decided it wasn't worth questioning, and just to ignore it, to the detriment of a wasted ten month trial, and wait for an appeal court to say do it all again.

As it stands it is an unproven allegation, which will be probed and is in all likelihood just a big nothing-burger. IMO

 

[Tortoise]

About Ravi Jay’s statement being at variance with door swipe data

CPS admits it made mistakes with Lucy Letby evidence

Last year 'killer nurse' Lucy Letby was found guilty of the murder of seven babies and the attempted murder of six others at the Countess of Chester Hospital.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Do you really and truly believe Dr Jayaram told police that he precisely remembered the time he went into nursery 1? He still remembered the minute, over a year after the incident, without reference to the baby's notes of the treatment he gave the baby?

In the first trial it was presented (incorrectly) by the prosecutor that nurse Joanne Williams swiped out of the unit at 3.47am. Dr Jayaram knew he was on the phone at the time she left the ward, and that he'd waited two to three minutes before deciding to go in to check up on Letby and the baby. Of course he's going to agree with the time of 3.50am, using the information provided to him.


Some trial testimony for you

First trial -

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, February 28

Dr Jayaram is now being asked about Child K's desaturation at 3.50am.
A plan of the neonatal unit layout is shown to the court.
Dr Jayaram said he was "happy" with how Child K was "very very settled", having had to make only minor adjustments to the ventilator settings.
An infusion chart for the morphine is shown to the court, with a start time of 3.50am. He confirms that 3.50am would be the time that would be administered.


The court is shown swipe data for Joanne Williams, who left the neonatal unit at 3.47am.
Mr Myers says it is very precise in coinciding with Dr Jayaram's recollection of waiting two-three minutes before the desaturation is timed at 3.50am, and asks if Dr Jayaram always has such a precise memory.
Dr Jayaram says "In this event, I did."
He adds: "I kept telling myself, don't be ridiculous [about my suspicions]. I looked at my watch - I didn't have a stopwatch."
Dr Jayaram says he has never seen the swipe data, nor had cause to look at any data.
Dr Jayaram says it would be appreciated if Mr Myers gave an indication of where he was going with his questioning.
Mr Myers says an earlier police interview had Dr Jayaram not giving a precise estimate how long Joanne Williams had been out, but is able to give a more precise estimate now, several years later.
Dr Jayaram says he has had more time to reflect on this incident.
Dr Jayaram: "The point is, this incident happened in the window when she [Joanne Williams] was out."
He tells the court the incident of this night is "emblazoned" in his mind.


Second trial -

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, July 1 - prosecution and defence closing speeches

Mr Johnson refers to the 3.41am transport team note from a conversation with Dr Ravi Jayaram. Letby agrees there are telephones at a nursing station outside the room, as well as one inside room 1.
Letby is asked if she accepts Joanne Williams coming into the neonatal unit at 3.47am. She replies she does.
Mr Johnson asks if the event must have happened before 3.47am. Letby says it does, given Joanne Williams' statement.
Letby says she will agree Dr Jayaram was on the phone, but not sure which one.



He says it was after this time that Joanne Williams left the unit, and "we know that for a very good reason".
He refers to the 3.41am transport team note with Dr Ravi Jayaram being called.
He says Dr Jayaram was at the nursing station on the phone when Joanne Williams left, and the transport team's note is accurate, as they have no reason to be inaccurate.
He says Joanne Williams was gone from the unit for "six minutes", and at that time, "somebody had to be looking after [Child K]."
He says Dr Jayaram had said that was Lucy Letby.

11:44am
He says when Joanne Williams returned, she said she saw Dr Jayaram and Lucy Letby.
He says Dr Jayaram is "right" when he says it was not an alarm that alerted him to room 1, as if it was, other staff would have been alerted to it.
He says the only explanation for Child K's saturations to be in the 80s and for there to be no alarm is that the alarm had been muted.
"You sabotage the child, you mute the alarm. It's bad luck for Lucy Letby that Dr Jayaram walks in." He says after that point, the alarm is then sounding that alerts Joanne Williams on her return to the unit.
He says Dr Jayaram had said it would take "at least 30 seconds" for Child K to desaturate 'to the 80s'. Mr Johnson counts up to 30 to demonstrate how long that is, using the court's digital clock.

--

It's ridiculous to think he had an independent memory of the times, beyond knowing he waited a couple of minutes, and incredibly distasteful to keep slurring the doctor who was saving the lives of babies being sabotaged by a serial killer, and was a credible witness according to the jury.

 

[Charlot123]

Do you really and truly believe Dr Jayaram told police that he precisely remembered the time he went into nursery 1? He still remembered the minute, over a year after the incident, without reference to the baby's notes of the treatment he gave the baby?

In the first trial it was presented (incorrectly) by the prosecutor that nurse Joanne Williams swiped out of the unit at 3.47am. Dr Jayaram knew he was on the phone at the time she left the ward, and that he'd waited two to three minutes before deciding to go in to check up on Letby and the baby. Of course he's going to agree with the time of 3.50am, using the information provided to him.


Some trial testimony for you

First trial -

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, February 28

Dr Jayaram is now being asked about Child K's desaturation at 3.50am.
A plan of the neonatal unit layout is shown to the court.
Dr Jayaram said he was "happy" with how Child K was "very very settled", having had to make only minor adjustments to the ventilator settings.
An infusion chart for the morphine is shown to the court, with a start time of 3.50am. He confirms that 3.50am would be the time that would be administered.


The court is shown swipe data for Joanne Williams, who left the neonatal unit at 3.47am.
Mr Myers says it is very precise in coinciding with Dr Jayaram's recollection of waiting two-three minutes before the desaturation is timed at 3.50am, and asks if Dr Jayaram always has such a precise memory.
Dr Jayaram says "In this event, I did."
He adds: "I kept telling myself, don't be ridiculous [about my suspicions]. I looked at my watch - I didn't have a stopwatch."
Dr Jayaram says he has never seen the swipe data, nor had cause to look at any data.
Dr Jayaram says it would be appreciated if Mr Myers gave an indication of where he was going with his questioning.
Mr Myers says an earlier police interview had Dr Jayaram not giving a precise estimate how long Joanne Williams had been out, but is able to give a more precise estimate now, several years later.
Dr Jayaram says he has had more time to reflect on this incident.
Dr Jayaram: "The point is, this incident happened in the window when she [Joanne Williams] was out."
He tells the court the incident of this night is "emblazoned" in his mind.


Second trial -

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, July 1 - prosecution and defence closing speeches

Mr Johnson refers to the 3.41am transport team note from a conversation with Dr Ravi Jayaram. Letby agrees there are telephones at a nursing station outside the room, as well as one inside room 1.
Letby is asked if she accepts Joanne Williams coming into the neonatal unit at 3.47am. She replies she does.
Mr Johnson asks if the event must have happened before 3.47am. Letby says it does, given Joanne Williams' statement.
Letby says she will agree Dr Jayaram was on the phone, but not sure which one.



He says it was after this time that Joanne Williams left the unit, and "we know that for a very good reason".
He refers to the 3.41am transport team note with Dr Ravi Jayaram being called.
He says Dr Jayaram was at the nursing station on the phone when Joanne Williams left, and the transport team's note is accurate, as they have no reason to be inaccurate.
He says Joanne Williams was gone from the unit for "six minutes", and at that time, "somebody had to be looking after [Child K]."
He says Dr Jayaram had said that was Lucy Letby.

11:44am
He says when Joanne Williams returned, she said she saw Dr Jayaram and Lucy Letby.
He says Dr Jayaram is "right" when he says it was not an alarm that alerted him to room 1, as if it was, other staff would have been alerted to it.
He says the only explanation for Child K's saturations to be in the 80s and for there to be no alarm is that the alarm had been muted.
"You sabotage the child, you mute the alarm. It's bad luck for Lucy Letby that Dr Jayaram walks in." He says after that point, the alarm is then sounding that alerts Joanne Williams on her return to the unit.
He says Dr Jayaram had said it would take "at least 30 seconds" for Child K to desaturate 'to the 80s'. Mr Johnson counts up to 30 to demonstrate how long that is, using the court's digital clock.

--

It's ridiculous to think he had an independent memory of the times, beyond knowing he waited a couple of minutes, and incredibly distasteful to keep slurring the doctor who was saving the lives of babies being sabotaged by a serial killer, and was a credible witness according to the jury.

You know.

All that Dr. Jay needed to do was to call Child Protective Services if he were that sure that a harm were done. Duty to protect. Any doctor. Immediately. Not remember in a year, and provide different versions. Now there are different versions of his memory, although internet keeps everything. But one can't afford providing different versions if a person is accused of murder. Now she is serving 15 life sentences.

To me the whole LL case is psychologically mystifying, just because doctors should rely on facts, not merely follow own instincts, all the more so that they are overworked and rushed. In fact, doctors can't afford to be superstitious but I can imagine, everyone is human.

But, the issue is, doctors are taught chemistry, physics, biology and math for a reason. To be able to use them.

And, after all, a trial expert is paid to use objective knowledge.

Here is what Dr. Evans is saying now

Lucy Letby medical expert: people are getting their facts wrong

Dr Dewi Evans, whose findings helped to convict the nurse of seven child murders, has been forced to defend himself as doctors question his evidence at the trial

www.thetimes.com

“These statistical figures were not part of the prosecution at any time,” he said. “In the whole time I spent with Cheshire police we didn’t discuss statistics."

And "We didn’t even consider straightforward statistics such as there are only usually two or three deaths per year normally. The first time I heard [the disputed figures] was from statisticians after reporting restrictions were lifted following conviction at the retrial.”

But finally, he says, "We’re clinicians, we’re scientists, we stick to facts.”

If he were really a scientist, the case would not be where it is now.

 

[joltz]

Here is link to insulin test and Liverpool lab failure

If you can’t open it I have to look elsewhere but - it is everywhere in MSM

Insulin Test Used to Convict Lucy Letby in Babies’ Deaths Was Unreliable, Experts Say

A new report by neonatal and toxicology experts casts doubt on the test results that were pivotal to the case against the British nurse.

www.nytimes.com

Every single post you make is full of errors and false claims. You are constantly being corrected by users who must have the patience of a saint.

Some people just refuse to accept they are wrong about anything. You pull them up on their claims and they move the goalposts.

JMO

 

[joltz]

You know.

All that Dr. Jay needed to do was to call Child Protective Services if he were that sure that a harm were done. Duty to protect. Any doctor. Immediately. Not remember in a year, and provide different versions. Now there are different versions of his memory, although internet keeps everything. But one can't afford providing different versions if a person is accused of murder. Now she is serving 15 life sentences.

To me the whole LL case is psychologically mystifying, just because doctors should rely on facts, not merely follow own instincts, all the more so that they are overworked and rushed. In fact, doctors can't afford to be superstitious but I can imagine, everyone is human.

But, the issue is, doctors are taught chemistry, physics, biology and math for a reason. To be able to use them.

And, after all, a trial expert is paid to use objective knowledge.

Here is what Dr. Evans is saying now

Lucy Letby medical expert: people are getting their facts wrong

Dr Dewi Evans, whose findings helped to convict the nurse of seven child murders, has been forced to defend himself as doctors question his evidence at the trial

www.thetimes.com

“These statistical figures were not part of the prosecution at any time,” he said. “In the whole time I spent with Cheshire police we didn’t discuss statistics."

And "We didn’t even consider straightforward statistics such as there are only usually two or three deaths per year normally. The first time I heard [the disputed figures] was from statisticians after reporting restrictions were lifted following conviction at the retrial.”

But finally, he says, "We’re clinicians, we’re scientists, we stick to facts.”

If he were really a scientist, the case would not be where it is now.

There isn't different versions of Jayarams memory.


In the original trial, Joanne Williams was stated to have swiped out of the unit at 03:47 - leaving a maximum of 3 minutes for Letby to attack, for Dr J's discomfort to simultaneously build, for him to catch Letby and to rescue the baby. This made Dr J's stated timeline less credible; not all of the account could possibly be correct.

In fact, door swipe data only shows staff swiping in - meaning Joanne Williams returned to the unit at 03:47 to find the resuscitation underway. Nursing notes (previously contradicted by the incorrect door data) suggest Joanne Williams left the unit at 03:40. This gave up to 7 minutes for Letby to attack, Dr J to get uncomfortable for a few minutes, to catch her in the act, and a further 3 minutes for the process of rescuing and stabilising the baby. This matches Dr J's testimony perfectly and got rid of all contradictions.

In the case of baby K, I would say that the scan data is actually partly what stopped the first trial gaining a conviction. Once the scan data was corrected, the timeline for the event was actually much clearer

Dr. Jayaram walked in 2-3 minutes after he observed Jo Williams leave. He said he marked this length of time by checking his watch. He was TOLD, in the first trial that she left at 3:47. This evidence then, in the first trial, put the collapse at 3:50am.

In the retrial, Jo Williams clarified that she left the ward "around 3:30." Dr. Ravi was on the phone at the nurses station until about 3:40, so Jo Williams' "about 3:30" seems to be closer to that time, with Dr. Ravi entering the room 2-3 minutes later and Jo Williams returning at 3:47 to alarms already sounding.

The Crown Prosecution Service told the Telegraph that the discrepancy discovered was related to one door in the neonatal intensive care unit and that it had been corrected for the retrial."

So it's the door between the labor unit and the neonatal ward. That makes sense, that's the only door that staff would move between and justify swipe data in both directions. Other doors only need a swipe to enter the unit from general access hallways.

LL denied she had anything to do with the care and collapses of baby K. She had little memory of the baby at all apparently. She is then placed cotside at all 3 collapses, which she denies.

Records prove she was there 3 minutes prior filing notes for the baby in one collapse, she needed the cotside notes to do this. She then insinuated she may have walked past the computer in the room to use a different computer so she might not have been there. She has no memory and can't recall though.


A nurse testifies that LL was "babysitting"and alone with baby K when she walked in after another crash. LL denies this.

Dr Jayaram says the same thing about the other crash, that LL was alone with baby K, while the baby was desaturating and the monitor was not alarming.

She calls Dr Jayaram a liar says it didn't happen and she wasn't there. She later steps back from these comments and says that she has no memory of the incident with Dr Jayaram.

So 3 separate incidents, where she is placed cotside at the collapse of baby K, using 3 different pieces of evidence. She says she has no memory of any of them, which means it didn't happen.

She then FB searches for the baby 2 years later and uses the reasoning that you never forget the babies you care for.

 

[Charlot123]

Every single post you make is full of errors and false claims. You are constantly being corrected by users who must have the patience of a saint.

Some people just refuse to accept they are wrong about anything. You pull them up on their claims and they move the goalposts.

JMO

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

 

[Charlot123]

There isn't different versions of Jayarams memory.


In the original trial, Joanne Williams was stated to have swiped out of the unit at 03:47 - leaving a maximum of 3 minutes for Letby to attack, for Dr J's discomfort to simultaneously build, for him to catch Letby and to rescue the baby. This made Dr J's stated timeline less credible; not all of the account could possibly be correct.

In fact, door swipe data only shows staff swiping in - meaning Joanne Williams returned to the unit at 03:47 to find the resuscitation underway. Nursing notes (previously contradicted by the incorrect door data) suggest Joanne Williams left the unit at 03:40. This gave up to 7 minutes for Letby to attack, Dr J to get uncomfortable for a few minutes, to catch her in the act, and a further 3 minutes for the process of rescuing and stabilising the baby. This matches Dr J's testimony perfectly and got rid of all contradictions.

In the case of baby K, I would say that the scan data is actually partly what stopped the first trial gaining a conviction. Once the scan data was corrected, the timeline for the event was actually much clearer

Dr. Jayaram walked in 2-3 minutes after he observed Jo Williams leave. He said he marked this length of time by checking his watch. He was TOLD, in the first trial that she left at 3:47. This evidence then, in the first trial, put the collapse at 3:50am.

In the retrial, Jo Williams clarified that she left the ward "around 3:30." Dr. Ravi was on the phone at the nurses station until about 3:40, so Jo Williams' "about 3:30" seems to be closer to that time, with Dr. Ravi entering the room 2-3 minutes later and Jo Williams returning at 3:47 to alarms already sounding.

The Crown Prosecution Service told the Telegraph that the discrepancy discovered was related to one door in the neonatal intensive care unit and that it had been corrected for the retrial."

So it's the door between the labor unit and the neonatal ward. That makes sense, that's the only door that staff would move between and justify swipe data in both directions. Other doors only need a swipe to enter the unit from general access hallways.

LL denied she had anything to do with the care and collapses of baby K. She had little memory of the baby at all apparently. She is then placed cotside at all 3 collapses, which she denies.

Records prove she was there 3 minutes prior filing notes for the baby in one collapse, she needed the cotside notes to do this. She then insinuated she may have walked past the computer in the room to use a different computer so she might not have been there. She has no memory and can't recall though.


A nurse testifies that LL was "babysitting"and alone with baby K when she walked in after another crash. LL denies this.

Dr Jayaram says the same thing about the other crash, that LL was alone with baby K, while the baby was desaturating and the monitor was not alarming.

She calls Dr Jayaram a liar says it didn't happen and she wasn't there. She later steps back from these comments and says that she has no memory of the incident with Dr Jayaram.

So 3 separate incidents, where she is placed cotside at the collapse of baby K, using 3 different pieces of evidence. She says she has no memory of any of them, which means it didn't happen.

She then FB searches for the baby 2 years later and uses the reasoning that you never forget the babies you care for.

Let me read all the versions, Jo’s one, the registrar who inserted size 2 tube’s one and Dr. Jayaram’s one.

To be honest, I am slightly surprised that there are discrepancies if the night had so “etched in his memory”, but I can cut Dr. RJ some slack because he likes attention. So obviously, his depositions and interviews end up on the forefront. I am noticing that other doctors are very quiet and Dr. Breary is bland.

About Facebooks - are you sure it was the baby’s FB and not the parents’ one?

FB has changed algorithms. Unrelated to the case. Some people who I have met years ago pop up in my field as “people you may know”. It is slightly annoying because I can’t see how my phone can be in their proximity and I am not interested in them at all, so my guess would be, either they do delivery now and can be in the area (unlikely), or they are searching for me. So I occasionally do click on their profiles.

Could the same happen to Lucy? Chester is not a megapolis. She could go to the same grocery store, pass by, or the parents could be looking for her in 2017 and then she could click back?

One thing I can say is that a person whom I last met pre-Covid is constantly popping up in my field. Perhaps it is just FB. Also: many things on FB are the function of the time one spends on FB.

 

[joltz]

Let me read all the versions, Jo’s one, the registrar who inserted size 2 tube’s one and Dr. Jayaram’s one.

To be honest, I am slightly surprised that there are discrepancies if the night had so “etched in his memory”, but I can cut Dr. RJ some slack because he likes attention. So obviously, his depositions and interviews end up on the forefront. I am noticing that other doctors are very quiet and Dr. Breary is bland.

About Facebooks - are you sure it was the baby’s FB and not the parents’ one?

FB has changed algorithms. Unrelated to the case. Some people who I have met years ago pop up in my field as “people you may know”. It is slightly annoying because I can’t see how my phone can be in their proximity and I am not interested in them at all, so my guess would be, either they do delivery now and can be in the area (unlikely), or they are searching for me. So I occasionally do click on their profiles.

Could the same happen to Lucy? Chester is not a megapolis. She could go to the same grocery store, pass by, or the parents could be looking for her in 2017 and then she could click back?

One thing I can say is that a person whom I last met pre-Covid is constantly popping up in my field. Perhaps it is just FB. Also: many things on FB are the function of the time one spends on FB.

The FB search of baby K's mother happened over two years after she died. Baby K's name never appeared on a hand over sheet. Yet Letby could remember her mother's name and at the same time she has no real memory of baby K. She can’t recall the incidents.

She searched for baby K’s mum in April 2018 and the first arrest wasn’t until July 2018. LL said in evidence last year that she performed the search because "you still think of patients you cared for."
So a single morphine infusion is enough to remember a name & inspire a search 2 years later?

but she remembers nothing else about the night...


And its not simply looking people up or clicking suggestions. Also this is FB in 2015 not 2025. Its searching for the families of babies she never met, doing it years later, offering no explanation beyond "it's part of a pattern of normal behaviour of me" it's FB searching families which she is proven to be unable to spell the name of but has handover sheets for within arms reach underneath her bed. Its attacking baby G, then FB the mother the same day, then FB the mother of baby E/F on the same day she attempting to murder baby I,

Its the patterns of searching for the parents of babies she has murdered on the same day she has murdered/ attacked them and then immediately searching for the families of what would be future victims. There was nothing to tie these families together at that time


Letby also changed her mind about some of the FB searches, since she was interviewed by police

In regards to baby D, in police interview she said she could not recall having searched the parents but accepted she had. She could not explain why she had done it

But from Letbys testimony

"You searched for the parents of baby D within days of her death, is that relevant?

Yes because it was a significant event."

So she couldn't remember doing it, and didn't know why but now she says she did It because it was a significant event.

 

[Charlot123]

The FB search of baby K's mother happened over two years after she died. Baby K's name never appeared on a hand over sheet. Yet Letby could remember her mother's name and at the same time she has no real memory of baby K. She can’t recall the incidents.

She searched for baby K’s mum in April 2018 and the first arrest wasn’t until July 2018. LL said in evidence last year that she performed the search because "you still think of patients you cared for."
So a single morphine infusion is enough to remember a name & inspire a search 2 years later?

but she remembers nothing else about the night...


And its not simply looking people up or clicking suggestions. Also this is FB in 2015 not 2025. Its searching for the families of babies she never met, doing it years later, offering no explanation beyond "it's part of a pattern of normal behaviour of me" it's FB searching families which she is proven to be unable to spell the name of but has handover sheets for within arms reach underneath her bed. Its attacking baby G, then FB the mother the same day, then FB the mother of baby E/F on the same day she attempting to murder baby I,

Its the patterns of searching for the parents of babies she has murdered on the same day she has murdered/ attacked them and then immediately searching for the families of what would be future victims. There was nothing to tie these families together at that time


Letby also changed her mind about some of the FB searches, since she was interviewed by police

In regards to baby D, in police interview she said she could not recall having searched the parents but accepted she had. She could not explain why she had done it

But from Letbys testimony

"You searched for the parents of baby D within days of her death, is that relevant?

Yes because it was a significant event."

So she couldn't remember doing it, and didn't know why but now she says she did It because it was a significant event.

It is odd. OCD-ish. However, in itself not a proof of murder. My first thought would be, boy, she has no other life except for that unit, does she?

Were these parents the only ones she searched for?

"It sticks in your memory" part I understand. I guess any untoward event does. I'd probably try to distract myself from bad thoughts, but maybe she had no other life?

 

[joltz]

It is odd. OCD-ish. However, in itself not a proof of murder. My first thought would be, boy, she has no other life except for that unit, does she?

Were these parents the only ones she searched for?

"It sticks in your memory" part I understand. I guess any untoward event does. I'd probably try to distract myself from bad thoughts, but maybe she had no other life?

And there we go, Letbys defenders going back to the token phrase

"its not proof of murder"

Nobody said it was.

But let's not just take every single piece of evidence, isolate it and say its not evidence of murder because thats fairly pointless...

JMO

 

[joltz]

It is odd. OCD-ish. However, in itself not a proof of murder. My first thought would be, boy, she has no other life except for that unit, does she?

Were these parents the only ones she searched for?

"It sticks in your memory" part I understand. I guess any untoward event does. I'd probably try to distract myself from bad thoughts, but maybe she had no other life?

The point which you have chosen to completely ignore, is that she said she had no memory of the shift and could offer no explanation as to why she was searching the family. She then changed her mind and said she had done it because it was a significant event.

Two polar opposites.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus or just the worlds unluckiest nurse ? …. you decide.
I’m going with the former personally.
She’s locked up for life, exactly where she belongs.

 

[katydid23]

You know.

All that Dr. Jay needed to do was to call Child Protective Services if he were that sure that a harm were done. Duty to protect. Any doctor. Immediately.

That ^^^ is not true. If he had called CPS, it would have been meaningless. What could he possibly say to prove that Nurse Letby was harming the collapsing babies?

I don't understand some of these claims...

 

[Ruthbullock]

That ^^^ is not true. If he had called CPS, it would have been meaningless. What could he possibly say to prove that Nurse Letby was harming the collapsing babies?

I don't understand some of these claims...

He would have at least been following the hospital policy- I’m not sure why that aspect is confusing, or do you believe he shouldn’t have been expected to follow what was in the policy at the time? Unfortunately you can’t claim it would have made no difference as it’s impossible to judge what difference it could have made- but his self righteousness would have been more tolerable if he had followed the correct procedures, because at least then he would be entitled to his self belief that he did everything he could and the failure purely lies with the fact that management weren’t listening to them.

I will be very surprised, especially as it was mentioned by Lady Thirlwall in the closing statements, if doctors and consultants aren’t reminded of their duty to safeguard patients by following policy.

 

[Tortoise]

He would have at least been following the hospital policy- I’m not sure why that aspect is confusing, or do you believe he shouldn’t have been expected to follow what was in the policy at the time? Unfortunately you can’t claim it would have made no difference as it’s impossible to judge what difference it could have made- but his self righteousness would have been more tolerable if he had followed the correct procedures, because at least then he would be entitled to his self belief that he did everything he could and the failure purely lies with the fact that management weren’t listening to them.

I will be very surprised, especially as it was mentioned by Lady Thirlwall in the closing statements, if doctors and consultants aren’t reminded of their duty to safeguard patients by following policy.

And yet the hospital says they took the appropriate route.