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 #38

[Tortoise]

That’s ok, you don’t need to believe there is a reporting restriction in place, even though it states that there is on the Thirlwall inquiry (link shared previously) and we know there are also potential other charges to be brought- possibly against management, possibly against doctors/consultants and possibly against Lucy Letby.

Those are reporting restrictions in relation to the Inquiry, not Letby.

If she's charged with new offences, and if the management are charged, there will be reporting restrictions in place on those matters at the relevant times.

 

[marynnu]

Am I misunderstanding- point 1- the corrected door swipe data showed someone else was present? Point 3- I don’t think that is an unusual response by someone who will have witnessed desaturations almost daily to not remember a specific baby (I personally find it more odd that people do have a clear memory, whilst appreciating it’s not helpful, it’s human nature)
Are we not then left with point 2- that someone else was present at the desaturation.
I’m not trying to disagree with you personally, I’m just trying to understand from all POV’s.
Trial 1 was a bigger picture and an overall concept following many threads, but the retrial should not have been influenced by anything stated before- it was a trial about an individual baby and I’m struggling to see from either your post or tortoises something that would have changed one jury from being undecided to a second jury judging beyond reasonable doubt.
IMO there possibly was something- a statement, a snippet of evidence- but not that is now published in the press, as I struggle to find a link to it (and I’m aware lots of published pieces have been redacted by the press who published them). So I would ask you again kindly- what did the second witness state that made an impact, what difference was made with the door swipe data,?

1. There is no evidence whatsoever that someone else was present when Baby K's initial desaturation.
2. This was an extremely preterm 25 weeker infant, something unusual at Chester, who needed reintubation, not just an everyday desat. So I'd say that's fairly memorable.

 

[Charlot123]

1. There is no evidence whatsoever that someone else was present when Baby K's initial desaturation.
2. This was an extremely preterm 25 weeker infant, something unusual at Chester, who needed reintubation, not just an everyday desat. So I'd say that's fairly memorable.

I would be unsurprised if some witnesses remember the case, and some don’t. We just can’t issue blanket statements. How our memory selects the data to keep us puzzling. We use different types of memory. (This is why after each crime it is so important to get stories of all witnesses, in as short a period of time as possible.)

So, Lucy not remembering the case or the other nurse not remembering it years later is unsurprising. But there were other people on the unit, right? Who intubated the baby with size 2 tube? All witnesses were not asked immediately after death.

But Dr. Jayaram said that the case “etched in his memory.” So he has to be responsible for all his statements regarding the case, that’s it. At least, his memory should be unwavering.

And now the trivia.

First, how high was the chance of an extremely preterm baby surviving in 2015?

In fact, 72-82% of those born at 25 gestation week, with aggressive treatment in academic-level hospitals, survived.

One can debate if COCH NICU was academic-level, probably not, given that they downgraded in 2016. So they were not that fit in 2015. But objectively, the care for baby K anppears adequately aggressive, all that required, NICU, intubation, ventilation. Now, of course, if Dr. Jayaram was a bad pulmonologist who didn’t understand the principles of ventilation, that’s another thing. However, about his qualifications as the clinician, and likewise, about this case, it is his word against Dr. Shoo Lee’s word. JMO. Lucy Letby is not relevant. But Dr. Jay has to be asked everything, when did he first see the baby? Who intubated the baby, him or registrar? What were the ventilation settings?

Not related to this case, but we see, complications of prematurity, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, respiratory distress syndrome, necrotizing enterocolitis, lots of neurological complications. Difficult cases, and we really don’t need malicious intents for the baby not to make it.

Short and Long-Term Outcomes for Extremely Preterm Infants - PMC

Prematurity is the leading cause of infant mortality worldwide. In developed countries, extremely preterm infants contribute disproportionately to both neonatal and infant mortality. Survival of this high-risk population has incrementally improved ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[katydid23]

I have just watched the Daily Telegraph podcast on YouTube which is strongly suggesting that babies that were said to be murdered by LL died due to natural causes or inadequate medical care.

The new critics of the case cannot say 100% for certain that the babies died from natural causes or inadequate care.

The best they can do is say they 'might have' or 'could have' died from natural causes. They cannot possibly know if some of the deaths may have been malicious or not. Normally that would be enough for reasonable doubt---IF the deaths could have been natural, then we cannot pin it all on Nurse Letby.

The problem is that the DT podcast ignored all of the suspicious circumstances, like LL lying about many details, and creating falsified medical logs in order to distance herself from the incidents. And these falsified medical notes were written at the time of the incidents and deaths----not afterwards as a cover up.

Why would Nurse Letby have to lie about what time a baby began bleeding, or what time they called a consultant for help? Or about what time a baby's mother came to the nursery?

These kinds of lies and manipulation by the defendant cast suspicion upon her.

The truth is, none of the medical experts can accurately and completely know the cause of each death in this case based upon medical testimony alone. The exact causes of death are complicated and based upon interpretation.

I am totally convinced that Nurse Letby is guilty because of other types of evidence surrounding this case. I don't think we can rely solely upon the medical experts. That is just part of the story.

If you follow along with the other circumstantial evidence it becomes apparent that Nurse Letby was the one person most impactful upon each incident. Her actions show guilt, imo. There's no reason for her to lie about so many details if she had no involvement in the incidents. She had no reason to falsify her medical notes, trying to distance herself from the collapse, if she was innocent.

And she falsified the notes DURING the incidents, sometimes just before the deaths, not months later. There is no other way to explain her deception, IMO, other than an attempt to cover up her malicious actions.

I agree that NHS has some issues and is sometimes under staffed and poorly trained. But these specific incidents were not caused by anyone other than Nurse Letby, imo.

I know most people on this site are convinced of LL's guilt but there does seem to be questions about the NHS and British justice that many people do not want to consider.

The above issues were considered during the trial. There was a lot of discussion about the NHS and their possible issues with understaffing, poor training, lack of equipment available, etc.

With each charged incident covered in the trial, the defense tried to offer a reasonable explanation for how one of those NHS issues might have been the cause of a collapse or death.

Meyers tried to make that case but he never could do so believably because the Babies were suddenly, inexplicably collapsing at a high rate. >>> 27 collapses. And each one was being adequately cared for and there was evidence corroborating it.

There were medical logs , staff reports, observation notes, Daily HandOver sheets, and feeding/changing schedules which proved that each of the victims had more than adequate care, attention, treatment and concern. None of the victims were neglected or forgotten.

 

[joltz]

Am I misunderstanding- point 1- the corrected door swipe data showed someone else was present? Point 3- I don’t think that is an unusual response by someone who will have witnessed desaturations almost daily to not remember a specific baby (I personally find it more odd that people do have a clear memory, whilst appreciating it’s not helpful, it’s human nature)
Are we not then left with point 2- that someone else was present at the desaturation.
I’m not trying to disagree with you personally, I’m just trying to understand from all POV’s.
Trial 1 was a bigger picture and an overall concept following many threads, but the retrial should not have been influenced by anything stated before- it was a trial about an individual baby and I’m struggling to see from either your post or tortoises something that would have changed one jury from being undecided to a second jury judging beyond reasonable doubt.
IMO there possibly was something- a statement, a snippet of evidence- but not that is now published in the press, as I struggle to find a link to it (and I’m aware lots of published pieces have been redacted by the press who published them). So I would ask you again kindly- what did the second witness state that made an impact, what difference was made with the door swipe data,?

Yes, you are misunderstanding

3:50 is the morphine infusion for reintubation. So reintubation definitely happened around 3:50, but we also need time for Letby to choose to attack, for K to desaturate (30-60 seconds, up to 2 minutes max), Jayaram to assess (20 seconds), K to be bagged, Dr. Smith to arrive, etc. There is NO wiggle room for it all to happen from 3:47-3:50. But plenty of time if it happens closer to 3:40.

And yes, it's definitely an unusual response. When Letby was interviewed by police she went as far as to suggest reasons for why she was stood doing nothing when Dr J entered the room. Then during the trial she claimed that Dr J was lying and that she was not present. The next day she claimed that she could not remember if she was present. There are 3 different versions of Letbys story. Then at the retrial she decided she could not remember anything from the entire shift.

Some people appear to be desperately looking for any explanation possible that exonerates Letby despite how ridiculous and completely implausible it is.

The second witness testimony showed that Letby was indeed present at another collapse. In the first trial the prosecution used documentation to show that Letby was there minutes beforehand but Letby said she had no memory etc. the witness proved that Letby was not only present but was the first responder and the one calling for help. It was a fairly significant event, that the nurse gave a detailed account of. Letby was convicted of attacks that she had been first responder to. It ties back to that same theme.

Imo, it makes Letbys amnesia look more unlikely. We now have two separate testimonies from people that witnessed collapses and they can both remember them. Letbys claims about not remembering anything don't ring true. Then you consider the fact that she is making FB searches for the family, while claiming not to remember anything about the shift. She didn't even meet the family, she wasn't designed nurse and baby K was at COC for 12 hours.

 

[Charlot123]

I don't believe, from a logical point of view, it would be automatic. Say for instance a representing barrister had to recuse himself because the defendant had told him she did it. That would mean every barrister thereafter would automatically be privy to that information and not be able to represent a not guilty defence.

MM said in December he didn't know why she didn't call her experts. It doesn't make sense if he got to receive that handover of information automatically.

Take one example, baby E, for instance.

The new panel says -

<snip>

"The 2 episodes of massive gastrointestinal haemorrhage were most likely due to in-utero hypoxia causing stomach or
small intestinal ulceration, and erosion into an intestinal blood vessel; or to a vascular abnormality like Dieulafoy’s lesion, which can cause life- threatening hemorrhage.

CONCLUSIONS
1. Baby 5 died from massive gastrointestinal hemorrhage due to either intrauterine
hypoxia causing stomach or intestinal ulceration or a congenital vascular lesion.
2. Emergency blood transfusion should have been given much earlier.
3. There was no evidence of air embolism
4. Post-mortem should have been requested"
International Expert Panel New Summary Report of additional 10 cases - EMBARGOED UNTIL NOON GMT on Thursday 3rd April.pdf


The trial heard the conclusions of Myers' experts via Myers' cross-examination of the prosecution experts as follows -

Mr Myers said: “He died because of a catastrophic bleed, didn’t he?” Dr Bohin replied: “I don’t believe that is so.”

Cross-examining, Ben Myers KC, defending, said: “The haemorrhaging that Child E experienced on August 3 and 4 could be due to some form of ulceration or bleeding from the stomach from natural causes, albeit not normal?”

On Thursday Mr Myers suggested that medics were too slow during the night-shift to order an emergency blood transfusion for Child E.

Rigid wire could have caused baby’s ‘extraordinary bleeding’, court hears


"Dr Bohin is asked about Child E's gastric bleed. She says she has 'never' seen a nasogastric (feeding) tube causing that damage - she says the infant lost 25% of his blood volume as a result

She says she was left 'clutching at straws' to explain such a haemorrhage. One explanation she found was an extremely rare condition (only six cases globally recorded since 1968) called Dieulafoy's lesion"... (link to tweets in media thread)

---

This is obviously not making it to the court of appeal. The only basis upon which they will hear it is if there was an acceptable justification for not calling her experts and not calling Dr Lee at her second trial.

McDonald had read trial transcripts he says, by December 2024.

Unless he said to Dr Lee, or any of his new experts, 'listen guys, it doesn't matter if you don't find anything new, because there's a really great reason the court of appeal will give her a fifth stab at this (two trials plus two appeals conducted by an outstanding KC), just go ahead and copy/paste the trial evidence, because we've got Dr Lee now to say there were no air embolisms', even though Myers chose not to call Dr Lee at the first trial, or for the second trial in June 2024, after he had Dr Lee give evidence to the court of appeal in April 2024.

Specifically about doctor Bohin as a trial witness.

If I understand there are eight open complaints about her.

Local complaints referenced in politician's plea for Letby retrial - Bailiwick Express News Guernsey

Medico-legal expert Dr Sandie Bohin was one of the prosecution witnesses credited with helping to secure the conviction of the baby killer after her trial in 2023. Letby was later found guilty of the attempted murder of a seventh baby at a retrial in 2024. Her attempts to appeal her convictions...

www.bailiwickexpress.com

It seems that her expertise is in question per Sir David Davis.

So would the qualification of the trial witness be the reason to reopen the case?

 

[Ruthbullock]

This has been another point of argument and still being raised in the press as a fact from the trial- with other people arguing this isn’t true, but unable to substantiate it.

"I was stunned to hear during Letby’s trial that consultants there performed only two scheduled ward rounds a week. This was a high-risk dependency neonatal unit.

In other units across the country, it’s commonplace for consultants to undertake two ward rounds per day as expected when caring for premature babies hovering between life and death. Given the Countess was in receipt of considerable additional funding from the NHS to provide high-dependency care, I would like to know where the money was spent."

NADINE DORRIES: Why did Dr Jayaram give two different stories?

NADINE DORRIES: Google Dr Ravi Jayaram and he pops up as a 'TV personality'. It's a moniker well earned having appeared on This Morning and The Weakest Link.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Tortoise]

Specifically about doctor Bohin as a trial witness.

If I understand there are eight open complaints about her.

Local complaints referenced in politician's plea for Letby retrial - Bailiwick Express News Guernsey

Medico-legal expert Dr Sandie Bohin was one of the prosecution witnesses credited with helping to secure the conviction of the baby killer after her trial in 2023. Letby was later found guilty of the attempted murder of a seventh baby at a retrial in 2024. Her attempts to appeal her convictions...

www.bailiwickexpress.com

It seems that her expertise is in question per Sir David Davis.

So would the qualification of the trial witness be the reason to reopen the case?

I wouldn't take as fact what David Davis says. He showed his ignorance of the facts in the Letby case, in the Commons, and unwillingness to receive correction of his errors from a mainstream journalist who attended every day of the trial.

'she was on shift for a number of deaths, although, and this is important, far from all of them,' he [MP David Davis] said. [...]

Contrary to what Sir David told MPs, she was on shift or had only just clocked off when a total of 12 out of the 13 babies died. [...]

When contacted by the Mail, Sir David responded: 'Go and talk to the professional statisticians who have been through it all. Do not come to me.'
Lucy Letby was on duty for all but one of 13 baby deaths in one year


Are you aware of a finding against Dr Bohin by the General Medical Council?

This appears to be a smear campaign - surprise surprise, and yet more assumption of the veracity of claims being made without waiting for due process to examine them.

MOO

 

[Tortoise]

This has been another point of argument and still being raised in the press as a fact from the trial- with other people arguing this isn’t true, but unable to substantiate it.

"I was stunned to hear during Letby’s trial that consultants there performed only two scheduled ward rounds a week. This was a high-risk dependency neonatal unit.

In other units across the country, it’s commonplace for consultants to undertake two ward rounds per day as expected when caring for premature babies hovering between life and death. Given the Countess was in receipt of considerable additional funding from the NHS to provide high-dependency care, I would like to know where the money was spent."

NADINE DORRIES: Why did Dr Jayaram give two different stories?

NADINE DORRIES: Google Dr Ravi Jayaram and he pops up as a 'TV personality'. It's a moniker well earned having appeared on This Morning and The Weakest Link.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Are you able to cite one example of a consultant not being on call to attend to a dying baby in this trial?

The consultants provided 24 hour cover, were always on call, with one of the team staying a few minutes away in hospital accommodation overnight. In several of the cases there were many consultants working on the babies at one time.

Why are the ward rounds relevant to these babies and Letby's case, in your opinion?

The jury found the babies did not deteriorate/die because of deficiencies in consultant knowledge, care or negligence. If a baby is well and stable, why does a consultant need to be doing what a registrar is trained and there to do?

 

[katydid23]

Specifically about doctor Bohin as a trial witness.

If I understand there are eight open complaints about her.

Local complaints referenced in politician's plea for Letby retrial - Bailiwick Express News Guernsey

Medico-legal expert Dr Sandie Bohin was one of the prosecution witnesses credited with helping to secure the conviction of the baby killer after her trial in 2023. Letby was later found guilty of the attempted murder of a seventh baby at a retrial in 2024. Her attempts to appeal her convictions...

www.bailiwickexpress.com

It seems that her expertise is in question per Sir David Davis.

So would the qualification of the trial witness be the reason to reopen the case?

How vague can that be? When exactly did these people file formal complaints ? How valid are the complaints?

It's not a surprise to me that these 'complaints' amount to nothing:


Dr Steve Evans, The Chair of Guernsey’s Medical Specialist Group, said he and others at the MSG “were deeply concerned to learn of Sir David Davis’s statements in the UK Parliament” on Wednesday evening.

“We are not aware of any complaints or concerns having been raised through any official channels regarding Dr Bohin’s role as an expert witness in the Letby trial,” he said. “She has a long and distinguished reputation as an expert witness, based on her many years of exemplary medical service.”


And most important:

“The recent Code of Conduct findings into the Deputy St Pier’s conduct in naming Dr Bohin in a Guernsey States meeting are a matter of public record,” he said.

“These confirm that, notwithstanding Deputy St Pier’s attempts to pursue multiple complaints against Dr Bohin through multiple avenues, not a single substantive complaint has been upheld against her. None of the various independent investigations have upheld any substantive complaints against Dr Bohin.

"She has a long and distinguished reputation...based on her many years of exemplary medical service" - Bailiwick Express News Guernsey

The Guernsey-based paediatrician was an expert witness called by the prosecution in Letby’s 2023 trial. She was convicted of killing seven babies and seven charges of attempting to murder six more babies. She was later found guilty of attempting to murder a seventh infant at a retrial in 2024...

www.bailiwickexpress.com

 

[Tortoise]

Guernsey's former Chief Minister Gavin St Pier has been formally reprimanded by the States for breaking the code of conduct.

An independent panel judged St Pier had broken rules by naming Dr Sandie Bohin in a speech to the States Assembly as one of the clinicians involved in an investigation into safeguarding. The investigation found no wrongdoing.

St Pier appealed against the judgement but that appeal was thrown out earlier this year.

Former Guernsey chief minister formally reprimanded

Deputy Gavin St Pier was found to have broken the code of conduct during a speech in 2022.

www.bbc.co.uk

We need Cilla here "Surprise Surprise!"

 

[marynnu]

I would be unsurprised if some witnesses remember the case, and some don’t. We just can’t issue blanket statements. How our memory selects the data to keep us puzzling. We use different types of memory. (This is why after each crime it is so important to get stories of all witnesses, in as short a period of time as possible.)

So, Lucy not remembering the case or the other nurse not remembering it years later is unsurprising. But there were other people on the unit, right? Who intubated the baby with size 2 tube? All witnesses were not asked immediately after death.

But Dr. Jayaram said that the case “etched in his memory.” So he has to be responsible for all his statements regarding the case, that’s it. At least, his memory should be unwavering.

And now the trivia.

First, how high was the chance of an extremely preterm baby surviving in 2015?

In fact, 72-82% of those born at 25 gestation week, with aggressive treatment in academic-level hospitals, survived.

One can debate if COCH NICU was academic-level, probably not, given that they downgraded in 2016. So they were not that fit in 2015. But objectively, the care for baby K anppears adequately aggressive, all that required, NICU, intubation, ventilation. Now, of course, if Dr. Jayaram was a bad pulmonologist who didn’t understand the principles of ventilation, that’s another thing. However, about his qualifications as the clinician, and likewise, about this case, it is his word against Dr. Shoo Lee’s word. JMO. Lucy Letby is not relevant. But Dr. Jay has to be asked everything, when did he first see the baby? Who intubated the baby, him or registrar? What were the ventilation settings?

Not related to this case, but we see, complications of prematurity, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, respiratory distress syndrome, necrotizing enterocolitis, lots of neurological complications. Difficult cases, and we really don’t need malicious intents for the baby not to make it.

Short and Long-Term Outcomes for Extremely Preterm Infants - PMC

Prematurity is the leading cause of infant mortality worldwide. In developed countries, extremely preterm infants contribute disproportionately to both neonatal and infant mortality. Survival of this high-risk population has incrementally improved ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The survival or otherwise of Baby K is irrelevant to the case. The charge was attempted murder by dislodging the ET tube.
Is there such a thing as a pulmonologist?
Of course Dr. J knew about intubation & ventilation, it's basic stuff in neonatal care.

 

[marynnu]

This has been another point of argument and still being raised in the press as a fact from the trial- with other people arguing this isn’t true, but unable to substantiate it.

"I was stunned to hear during Letby’s trial that consultants there performed only two scheduled ward rounds a week. This was a high-risk dependency neonatal unit.

In other units across the country, it’s commonplace for consultants to undertake two ward rounds per day as expected when caring for premature babies hovering between life and death. Given the Countess was in receipt of considerable additional funding from the NHS to provide high-dependency care, I would like to know where the money was spent."

NADINE DORRIES: Why did Dr Jayaram give two different stories?

NADINE DORRIES: Google Dr Ravi Jayaram and he pops up as a 'TV personality'. It's a moniker well earned having appeared on This Morning and The Weakest Link.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Really? Where I worked was far more intensive than Chester but we didn't have 2 consultant ward rounds a day. Far too much is being made of the twice a week thing. It's not like the junior doctors didn't know what they were doing. In practice they do the bulk of care. Consultants are called that for a reason - much of their role is to be available to advise & assist. Which they were.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Really? Where I worked was far more intensive than Chester but we didn't have 2 consultant ward rounds a day. Far too much is being made of the twice a week thing. It's not like the junior doctors didn't know what they were doing. In practice they do the bulk of care. Consultants are called that for a reason - much of their role is to be available to advise & assist. Which they were.

Except for when they weren't available, which shouldn’t be ignored.
There is a massive difference between twice a day and twice a week- they are opposing ends that were used in the trial to reinforce the gaping difference between normal (in a perfect world) and what was happening.
None of us can know now what difference that would have made- but I doubt it would have been a negative impact and would imagine more visibility and supervision on the ward would have led to more DATIXs being completed etc etc etc as I have said before.
Two of the babies at trial were found to have suffered sub optimal care and were not then attributed to LL.

Child H, two allegations of attempted murder. Prosecutors said Letby sabotaged the care of the baby girl in some way which led to two profound oxygen desaturations. The defence said elements of Child H’s care were suboptimal and there could be innocent explanations for the episodes – COUNT 10 NOT GUILTY, COUNT 11 JURY COULD NOT REACH VERDICT.

Child N, three allegations of attempted murder. The Crown said Letby inflicted trauma in the baby boy’s throat and also injected him with air in the bloodstream. The defence said Letby committed no harmful acts and there was suboptimal care – COUNT 17 GUILTY, COUNT 18 JURY COULD NOT REACH VERDICT, COUNT 19 JURY COULD NOT REACH VERDICT.

What the prosecution and defence said about each child in the Lucy Letby trial

The nurse faced charges over 17 children.

www.thenational.scot

 

[Parker Knoll]

She was murdering newborns while her colleagues were working along side her !
I’m sure the last thing she was concerned about was nurses filing extra DATIX reports and more visibility and supervision didn’t apply here as she waits until parents had left the cot side or she was alone for moments before she struck.
Can you not recognise that the phrase “ hiding in plain sight “ was how she orchestrated these crimes ?

 

[JosieJo]

This has been another point of argument and still being raised in the press as a fact from the trial- with other people arguing this isn’t true, but unable to substantiate it.

"I was stunned to hear during Letby’s trial that consultants there performed only two scheduled ward rounds a week. This was a high-risk dependency neonatal unit.

In other units across the country, it’s commonplace for consultants to undertake two ward rounds per day as expected when caring for premature babies hovering between life and death. Given the Countess was in receipt of considerable additional funding from the NHS to provide high-dependency care, I would like to know where the money was spent."

NADINE DORRIES: Why did Dr Jayaram give two different stories?

NADINE DORRIES: Google Dr Ravi Jayaram and he pops up as a 'TV personality'. It's a moniker well earned having appeared on This Morning and The Weakest Link.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Was this 2 rounds a week per consultant? Or across the board ?

It states "scheduled ward rounds"
The consultant on call for the day could well have done a round every day. It's not a given that each baby wasn't seen by a consultant every day.

Obviously I'm not saying it would be "gold standard care" but likely was "safe care"

 

[Tortoise]

<RSBM>
Two of the babies at trial were found to have suffered sub optimal care and were not then attributed to LL.

Child H, two allegations of attempted murder. Prosecutors said Letby sabotaged the care of the baby girl in some way which led to two profound oxygen desaturations. The defence said elements of Child H’s care were suboptimal and there could be innocent explanations for the episodes – COUNT 10 NOT GUILTY, COUNT 11 JURY COULD NOT REACH VERDICT.

Child N, three allegations of attempted murder. The Crown said Letby inflicted trauma in the baby boy’s throat and also injected him with air in the bloodstream. The defence said Letby committed no harmful acts and there was suboptimal care – COUNT 17 GUILTY, COUNT 18 JURY COULD NOT REACH VERDICT, COUNT 19 JURY COULD NOT REACH VERDICT.

What the prosecution and defence said about each child in the Lucy Letby trial

The nurse faced charges over 17 children.

www.thenational.scot

Neither of the two not guilty verdicts in the trial (child G and child H) were findings of sub optimal care.

The jury found they were not certain Letby had tried to kill them. That does not mean sub optimal care, which was not voted on.

Q1) Are we sure that the defendant intended to kill the child?

If yes, go to Q2 If no, the verdict on that count should be 'not guilty'.
Judge tells Lucy Letby trial to approach case in a 'fair and calm way'

BTW, Child N counts 18 and 19 were no verdict.

The prosecution accepted there were, in a few instances, some valid criticisms of care, but the experts were sure those instances would not have led to the babies collapsing in the way that they did. Baby A for instance did not receive glucose for 4 hours, but baby A did not suffer low blood sugar or die within 4 hours of dehydration.

 

[marynnu]

Except for when they weren't available, which shouldn’t be ignored.
There is a massive difference between twice a day and twice a week- they are opposing ends that were used in the trial to reinforce the gaping difference between normal (in a perfect world) and what was happening.
None of us can know now what difference that would have made- but I doubt it would have been a negative impact and would imagine more visibility and supervision on the ward would have led to more DATIXs being completed etc etc etc as I have said before.
Two of the babies at trial were found to have suffered sub optimal care and were not then attributed to LL.

Child H, two allegations of attempted murder. Prosecutors said Letby sabotaged the care of the baby girl in some way which led to two profound oxygen desaturations. The defence said elements of Child H’s care were suboptimal and there could be innocent explanations for the episodes – COUNT 10 NOT GUILTY, COUNT 11 JURY COULD NOT REACH VERDICT.

Child N, three allegations of attempted murder. The Crown said Letby inflicted trauma in the baby boy’s throat and also injected him with air in the bloodstream. The defence said Letby committed no harmful acts and there was suboptimal care – COUNT 17 GUILTY, COUNT 18 JURY COULD NOT REACH VERDICT, COUNT 19 JURY COULD NOT REACH VERDICT.

What the prosecution and defence said about each child in the Lucy Letby trial

The nurse faced charges over 17 children.

www.thenational.scot

People bang on a lot about 'suboptimal care'. It just means less than ideal. It doesn't mean dangerous. Show me a neonatal unit in the land - or any ward, for that matter - that doesn't deliver suboptimal care on a regular basis.
Have you any actual clinical experience whatsoever?

 

[Sweeper2000]

we never did hear about the degree to which the suboptimal care was considered bad nor did we hear about whether or not that suboptimal care was actually unusual, nor did we hear about the rates of suboptimal care at a broader level across the NHS to give a comparative frame.

ETA, that may suggest that it wasn't so far from what is expected and Dr Bohin's worst word if i remember correctly was that she was "critical" of it which is far from condemnatory. Think the delay on the lung lube was the worst of it if my memory serves.

 

[Charlot123]

People bang on a lot about 'suboptimal care'. It just means less than ideal. It doesn't mean dangerous. Show me a neonatal unit in the land - or any ward, for that matter - that doesn't deliver suboptimal care on a regular basis.
Have you any actual clinical experience whatsoever?

Suboptimal care means "less-than-expected-for-an-average-level-NICU-in-the-area."

Depending on how one views it. Some aspects might be not within the doctors' power (poo in the unit was not their fault, it was definitely on Tony Chambers). So you can't really blame the doctors for having to work in the dump. Nor can you blame the nurses.

There is another issue: their NICU's level of care at that time was above their capacity, training or expertise. This is what has to be reviewed. Could these doctors even take care of babies born at 25-weeks-gestational-age? And if they could not, why didn’t they raise the question of downgrading sooner?

Regardless of Lucy, this question has to be asked. Not raising the question about downgrading sooner... was it the doctors' fault, was it the CEO's fault, was it poor logistic of organizing things in the county, who is to be blamed?