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

[Ruthbullock]

And yet the hospital says they took the appropriate route.

In regards of the hospital route he did internally, but he didn’t want to go to the police as that seemed too dramatic without evidence (fair enough, most of us can accept that), so he should have folllowed policy and gone to his LADO, which is part of child protection services- he just didn’t do that, no one did at any point- the police had to inform them they need to do that.

 

[Tortoise]

In regards of the hospital route he did internally, but he didn’t want to go to the police as that seemed too dramatic without evidence (fair enough, most of us can accept that), so he should have folllowed policy and gone to his LADO, which is part of child protection services- he just didn’t do that, no one did at any point- the police had to inform them they need to do that.

The hospital says the consultants followed the appropriate procedure.

 

[Ruthbullock]

And yet the hospital says they took the appropriate route.

Every aspect of public bodies and even private bodies in the UK have some degree of external ports of call for advice, even if you want to go no further- on this specific case the child safeguarding act came out and was at the forefront of most people’s minds at the start of 2015. It will have been heavily pushed within the NHS particularly, as there had been an inquiry the previous year, it would have been front and centre of their training at the time. The doctors had many avenues to go down externally and chose none. In your view the doctors and consultants all did as much as possible I assume, and all failings are due to management. I don’t suppose you have a timeline somewhere if the doctors actions ?

 

[Ruthbullock]

The hospital says the consultants followed the appropriate procedure.

Internally and that’s all the management need to justify- the doctors had many external options for advice or investigation and it was open and available to them, it was in the policy. The fact they chose not to from the hospitals perspective means that they felt the hospitals investigations were appropriate, rather than what they implied later which is that they should have done more.

 

[Tortoise]

Every aspect of public bodies and even private bodies in the UK have some degree of external ports of call for advice, even if you want to go no further- on this specific case the child safeguarding act came out and was at the forefront of most people’s minds at the start of 2015. It will have been heavily pushed within the NHS particularly, as there had been an inquiry the previous year, it would have been front and centre of their training at the time. The doctors had many avenues to go down externally and chose none. In your view the doctors and consultants all did as much as possible I assume, and all failings are due to management. I don’t suppose you have a timeline somewhere if the doctors actions ?

I don't know if there is a document putting their actions together all in one place. If I come across one I'll post it.

 

[Baby baby Jane]

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.

Agree and the words “soon afterwards” is no information at all.

It should state facts like:
1.Schedule of this piece of lab equipment testing (it will be on a schedule)
2. When test was conducted in the cycle
3. How many tests performed after THIS test and before “failed soon afterwards”
4. Definition of “fail” and potential impact on test results (for example, the equipment could fail because the in/off light is flickering or cable is frayed, which had no bearing on test results.

…”soon afterwards” could be the next day, or the next month. “Fail” could mean anything & maybe no impact on results.
Using the words “soon after” tells me that using the precise information doesn’t support the test being inaccurate. Like “soon after” was weeks later ….

 

[katydid23]

Internally and that’s all the management need to justify- the doctors had many external options for advice or investigation and it was open and available to them, it was in the policy. The fact they chose not to from the hospitals perspective means that they felt the hospitals investigations were appropriate, rather than what they implied later which is that they should have done more.

So, are you now saying that the doctors had valid concerns about Nurse Letby, and they didn't do enough to stop her?

 

[May72031]

It is rather curious that some people are far more frustrated at the doctors (who tried to raise attention to Letby) rather than the management (who tried to protect Letby and handwave away concerns).

 

[Ruthbullock]

So, are you now saying that the doctors had valid concerns about Nurse Letby, and they didn't do enough to stop her?

I have no idea as I was not there and still sway both sides of whether LL is guilty or innocent, as I have said many times I’m glad I wasn’t on the jury. With regards my opinions on the doctors and that some responsibility lies with them for delays and not acting sooner- that opinion hasn’t changed since before the trial and has only strengthened since.

 

[Ruthbullock]

It is rather curious that some people are far more frustrated at the doctors (who tried to raise attention to Letby) rather than the management (who tried to protect Letby and handwave away concerns).

Or maybe it’s frustration at both- what’s more curious is people being curious about other people having a difference of opinion, as though a forum is a place where we should all agree and not discuss our opinions and perceptions.

 

[mrC]

well if shes guilty why didn't the doctors raise their concerns sooner the law requires them to do so they had plenty of ways of doing so if she was guilty those doctors are ust as much to blame for the deaths as any of the management oth in fact and also in law

 

[joltz]

well if shes guilty why didn't the doctors raise their concerns sooner the law requires them to do so they had plenty of ways of doing so if she was guilty those doctors are ust as much to blame for the deaths as any of the management oth in fact and also in law

No, your just plain wrong.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

She is guilty. But sadly she covered her tracks very well, for quite awhile.

Once the doctors became suspicious and began to ask that she be put on desk duty, while an investigation could happen, the hospital administrators DENIED those requests.

And Letby's union reps went to bat for Lucy and worked hard to try to get her back on duty in the nurseries.

If people were accusing me of killing babies, I would have stepped away from the babies long enough to show it wasn't me. I'd assume that whatever was happening would still happen, and if I wasn't on the floor then I would be exonerated.

Lucy was not interested in that possible solution. They wanted her to work an office job but she was adamant that she wanted to go right back to the critical care nursery, where she had already seen 7 babies die, unexpectedly. She was threatening to sue them if they didn't return her to that role.

And she demanded an apology from all of the staff.

 

[katydid23]

Or maybe it’s frustration at both- what’s more curious is people being curious about other people having a difference of opinion, as though a forum is a place where we should all agree and not discuss our opinions and perceptions.

What I find curious now, is some here are complaining that Lucy was unfairly convicted, after years of a thorough investigation and a very long trial. But same people are now saying she should have been reported to the police or CPS SOONER than she was, and it is now the doctor's faults that more babies died?

So it is both 'wrong' that she was arrested, charged and convicted by a jury, and it is wrong that she wasn't reported earlier for harming the babies?

I find that contradiction very curious.

 

[Marantz4250b]

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 here, yet again, you demonstrate that you (and the other Letby'ists) completely fail to get the point of this whole sorry affair!

No single piece of evidence is incontrovertible proof of murder! If it were then we would not have had needed a ten month trial.

Her searches are not proof of murder;

Her taking home 257 confidential patient records are not proof of murder;

Her falsifying medical records are not proof of murder;

Her being seen standing by doing nothing while a baby collapsed is not proof of murder;

Her being on duty for every single incident she was charged with is not proof of murder;

Her having a trail of death and mayhem follow her shift change pattern (nights to days) is not proof of murder;

Her coming back from holiday and there being a string of deaths and incidents starting the very day of her return when there had been zero in the fortnight she'd been away is not proof of murder;

I could go on and on and on. But, indeed, none of this is proof of murder on a individual evidential basis.

She was convicted because of the weight and nature of evidence against her, not because any individual piece of evidence proved the charges of itself.

It honestly, staggers me that her supporters seem utterly unable to grasp this fairly simple concept as to why she was convicted. Genuinely, I'm completely baffled by it. I don't know whether it's a case of people being wilfully ignorant (or just outright contrarian) or that they honestly unable to assess facts and evidence in the round and can only compartmentalise each piece of evidence as a stand-alone subject.

Letby's supporters seem to have some mild obsession with statistics, despite statistics almost never being mentioned in the whole ten month trial. I'm reluctant to put it like this as I know it will inevitably be misinterpreted but, look at it this way; when you weigh up all of the evidential facts I mentioned above - let alone all the stuff I haven't mentioned - what do you think the chances are that she is genuinely innocent of every single charge she was convicted on? Genuinely, what is your opinion?

Any rational thought on the matter must logically result in you concluding that the chances of her not being guilty are absolutely, vanishingly tiny. So remote as to be effectively impossible.

 

[Marantz4250b]

It is rather curious that some people are far more frustrated at the doctors (who tried to raise attention to Letby) rather than the management (who tried to protect Letby and handwave away concerns).

Which completely destroys the argument that she was thrown under the bus to cover up a "failing" hospital. If that was their plan - which is ludicrous and would never have worked - then why were they protecting her?

 

[mrC]

they weren't protecting her they just said she there was no evidence that she harmed any babies and to start to start dr Jayaram agreed with them

 

[Marantz4250b]

they weren't protecting her they just said she there was no evidence that she harmed any babies and to start to start dr Jayaram agreed with them

They were absolutely and categorically protecting her. Without any shadow of a doubt!

They threatened consultants saying that they'd lose their jobs if they didn't drop what they were saying and insisted that they write a letter of apology to her.

 

[joltz]

they weren't protecting her they just said she there was no evidence that she harmed any babies and to start to start dr Jayaram agreed with them

They were protecting her to the point it was ridiculous. They were more concerned with her wellbeing than investigating the deaths of any of the babies. They was more focus on Letbys grievance than there was on any aspect of the deaths.

 

[mrC]

That is because she won a grievance procedure they hae to by law