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

  • #821
That article doesn't say that Dr Evans used the same information, the summary provided to the coroner, to draw his conclusions. It says he used baby O's medical notes. Nowhere does it say the doctors didn't document the insertion of the cannula in baby O's medical notes.

The point is, that was at the point of baby O's third and final resuscitation effort that afternoon. There was no natural explanation for those collapses necessitating resuscitation.

He was thriving that morning on his third day of life, when Letby came back from holiday, and then his stomach blew up with air after doctors had just examined him and noted he had no problems. Dr Bohin noticed Letby had falsified her retrospective nursing notes to say he'd been changed from Optiflow to CPAP, which would have justified air in his gut, when in actual fact he wasn't on breathing support. He kept collapsing every time and only when she was left alone with him.

The whole issue of the cannula causing a bleed was discounted by Prof Marnerides at trial. The expert pathologist knew about it, the defence knew about it, the new defence experts knew about it - from the baby's medical notes.

SD is a disgruntled former employee of the coroner's office who was not medically trained and would have been dismissed for gross misconduct had she not resigned.

Hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good story!

I wouldnt be surprised if Letbys PR team have been sitting on this one a while, waiting for the best time to drop another "bombshell" it's been fairly quiet for a few days after all..
 
Last edited:
  • #822
Hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good story!

I wouldnt be surprised if Letbys PR team have been sitting on this one a while, waiting for the best time to drop another "bombshell" it's been fairly quiet for a few days after all..
 
  • #823
Wrong baby. It was baby N with haemophilia.

There was a sinister connotation to her behaviour. She not only showed great interest in his condition, she selected baby N to attack, out of all the babies in the unit that night.

She was also evasive when police interviewed her and wouldn't admit to knowing baby N had haemophilia. But they had her texts, and she had the handover sheet, under her bed. All the nurses were aware from the handover.

Baby N only screamed when left alone with Letby. That is one thing that is not perfectly normal. Babies screamed when Letby was around them, so to compare her behaviour with that of other nurses is a misdirection, IMO.

There is zero science behind allocating guilt based on newborn preemies' screaming.
 
  • #824
There is zero science behind allocating guilt based on newborn preemies' screaming.
No one said that was how guilt was allocated. It was only one part of what happened.
 
  • #825
That article doesn't say that Dr Evans used the same information, the summary provided to the coroner, to draw his conclusions. It says he used baby O's medical notes. Nowhere does it say the doctors didn't document the insertion of the cannula in baby O's medical notes.

The point is, that was at the point of baby O's third and final resuscitation effort that afternoon. There was no natural explanation for those collapses necessitating resuscitation.

He was thriving that morning on his third day of life, when Letby came back from holiday, and then his stomach blew up with air after doctors had just examined him and noted he had no problems. Dr Bohin noticed Letby had falsified her retrospective nursing notes to say he'd been changed from Optiflow to CPAP, which would have justified air in his gut, when in actual fact he wasn't on breathing support. He kept collapsing every time and only when she was left alone with him.

The whole issue of the cannula causing a bleed was discounted by Prof Marnerides at trial. The expert pathologist knew about it, the defence knew about it, the new defence experts knew about it - from the baby's medical notes.

SD is a disgruntled former employee of the coroner's office who was not medically trained and would have been dismissed for gross misconduct had she not resigned.
My point was that the doctors once again misled people by omission (and if you suspect someone of murder and are trying to gather evidence you make sure everything is documented correctly) and my question that you failed to answer was why did the doctors not submit that information to the coroner initially?

SD maybe a disgruntled employee, but apart from believing in what she is saying, why would she blow up her own career,? She was employed as a senior coroners officer, and her employment tribunal was attempting to report another case that appeared to be a MOJ with the Cheshire police.

JMO- but if any professionals/ people involved question a verdict it should be examined again. Whilst it may have the same outcome, these people don’t gain anything from speaking out, unless they are proved correct, or believe they need to morally speak out.
 
  • #826
That article doesn't say that Dr Evans used the same information, the summary provided to the coroner, to draw his conclusions. It says he used baby O's medical notes. Nowhere does it say the doctors didn't document the insertion of the cannula in baby O's medical notes.

The point is, that was at the point of baby O's third and final resuscitation effort that afternoon. There was no natural explanation for those collapses necessitating resuscitation.

He was thriving that morning on his third day of life, when Letby came back from holiday, and then his stomach blew up with air after doctors had just examined him and noted he had no problems. Dr Bohin noticed Letby had falsified her retrospective nursing notes to say he'd been changed from Optiflow to CPAP, which would have justified air in his gut, when in actual fact he wasn't on breathing support. He kept collapsing every time and only when she was left alone with him.

The whole issue of the cannula causing a bleed was discounted by Prof Marnerides at trial. The expert pathologist knew about it, the defence knew about it, the new defence experts knew about it - from the baby's medical notes.

SD is a disgruntled former employee of the coroner's office who was not medically trained and would have been dismissed for gross misconduct had she not resigned.
Do you know why Dr Bohin and Prof Marinerides were not called to the inquiry?
 
  • #827
Do you know why Dr Bohin and Prof Marinerides were not called to the inquiry?
Just for clarity, I know the answer- they were specialists brought in after the fact and weren’t actually on the shop floor at the time, yet you frame someone’s guilt using second hand accounts and have no first hand accounts to dispute someone else’s second hand account.
 
  • #828
Just for clarity, I know the answer- they were specialists brought in after the fact and weren’t actually on the shop floor at the time, yet you frame someone’s guilt using second hand accounts and have no first hand accounts to dispute someone else’s second hand account.

What have these two doctors got to do with the inquiry? Letby's guilt is taken as a given. The issue is whether things could & should have been done differently.
For someone who has professed objectivity you seem to be getting a bit emotional, accusing people of framing her. Of course the experts were brought in after the event. Are you seriously suggesting only people working on the unit could testify??
 
  • #829
My point was that the doctors once again misled people by omission (and if you suspect someone of murder and are trying to gather evidence you make sure everything is documented correctly) and my question that you failed to answer was why did the doctors not submit that information to the coroner initially?

SD maybe a disgruntled employee, but apart from believing in what she is saying, why would she blow up her own career,? She was employed as a senior coroners officer, and her employment tribunal was attempting to report another case that appeared to be a MOJ with the Cheshire police.

JMO- but if any professionals/ people involved question a verdict it should be examined again. Whilst it may have the same outcome, these people don’t gain anything from speaking out, unless they are proved correct, or believe they need to morally speak out.
I don't know that the doctors, or a doctor, did omit to inform the coroner of the medical procedure. I don't know who informed the coroner of what. I don't know the procedure for what is sent, what is not sent, or that they didn't follow procedure.

It's a bit much to start making accusations about doctors without having sight of evidence, and relying on the word of someone with a grudge against Cheshire Police, and who was found to have committed gross misconduct.

My understanding is that nothing in the way of medical equipment or appliance (cannulas, lines etc) is removed from the body when it is sent for a postmortem. So on that basis, the pathologist would have seen the drain for himself, or at least the point of insertion. No pathologist who saw and examined the body, or the autopsy photographs, said that the medical procedure caused any injury. It was excluded as a cause of injury, at trial.

The CCRC will review McDonald's reports and people like SD inserting themselves in the case will not feature at any stage of the review, any appeal, or trial. She is unqualified and irrelevant.

IMO
 
  • #830
My point was that the doctors once again misled people by omission (and if you suspect someone of murder and are trying to gather evidence you make sure everything is documented correctly) and my question that you failed to answer was why did the doctors not submit that information to the coroner initially?

SD maybe a disgruntled employee, but apart from believing in what she is saying, why would she blow up her own career,? She was employed as a senior coroners officer, and her employment tribunal was attempting to report another case that appeared to be a MOJ with the Cheshire police.

JMO- but if any professionals/ people involved question a verdict it should be examined again. Whilst it may have the same outcome, these people don’t gain anything from speaking out, unless they are proved correct, or believe they need to morally speak out.
Agree. They can say what they like about Davies, but the point is important. There seems to be a consistent theme throughout this case where important things have not been documented and flagged. Things which might attract criticism. It’s not surprising given the state of the NHS, and everyone’s just trying to do their best with the resources they have.

Look at the ridiculous claim that Letby predicted F’s TPN bag would tissue, and so she poisoned a stock bag in the fridge just in case. Ludicrous. Anyone who followed the trial knows deep down they hung the same bag. As far as I remember there wasn’t even a prescription for a stock bag? But that’s ok, somebody testified they definitely would have hung a new bag, so it’s just accepted. Most nurses would recoil in horror at the thought of a bag being rehung in this way. But that’s the reality of this unit, sewer gas in the air and corners cut at every angle, but COCH gets a pass.

Things are much more likely to be ‘unexpected’ and ‘unexplained’ when the doctors are worked off their feet across 3 busy units, and potentially being economical with what gets recorded where.

The cause of collapse is what’s important in this baby. But this was also a charge that the jury returned an unanimous verdict on, and how much did the talk of punching babies and car accident injuries influence the jury.

Brearey was trying to save the baby with that procedure. If it’s true this wasn’t reported to the pathologist then it’s worrying from many different perspectives.

JMO
 
  • #831
My point was that the doctors once again misled people by omission (and if you suspect someone of murder and are trying to gather evidence you make sure everything is documented correctly) and my question that you failed to answer was why did the doctors not submit that information to the coroner initially?

SD maybe a disgruntled employee, but apart from believing in what she is saying, why would she blow up her own career,? She was employed as a senior coroners officer, and her employment tribunal was attempting to report another case that appeared to be a MOJ with the Cheshire police.

JMO- but if any professionals/ people involved question a verdict it should be examined again. Whilst it may have the same outcome, these people don’t gain anything from speaking out, unless they are proved correct, or believe they need to morally speak out.

This other case appeared to be a MOJ? Is that just a guess then?
 
  • #832
  • #833
JMO- but if any professionals/ people involved question a verdict it should be examined again. Whilst it may have the same outcome, these people don’t gain anything from speaking out, unless they are proved correct, or believe they need to morally speak out.

That’s a great idea !!
Why don’t we keep having trials, getting guilty verdicts, demand re examination, see if we get the same outcome or not and then rinse and repeat until the end of time ?
 
  • #834
Regarding the coroner...personally I feel they are trying to cover their own 🤬🤬🤬...they have access to ALL the medical records....just because the needle insertion wasn't mentioned on the referral form? Why would it ? They didn't feel it was relevant....not every needle , test , drip etc etc is put on the report to the coroner...it's up to the coroner to go through the medical notes.

Plus the important thing is ...it was presented at trial and cross examined already
 
  • #835
"A disciplinary hearing in February 2023 found allegations of gross misconduct by Stephanie Davies unrelated to the Lucy Letby case to be proved and had she not already resigned, she would have been dismissed without notice,”



Is it me ? ... or have so many of the people putting their balls in her court have an axe to grind
 
  • #836
No it’s not you Jo !
It’s “ that” group of people that we all have come across in life and try to avoid at all costs.
 
  • #837
"A disciplinary hearing in February 2023 found allegations of gross misconduct by Stephanie Davies unrelated to the Lucy Letby case to be proved and had she not already resigned, she would have been dismissed without notice,”



Is it me ? ... or have so many of the people putting their balls in her court have an axe to grind

Axe to grind, problem with authority, conspiracy theorists, sad old men, middle aged women who want to mother her, the list goes on. And on. Is there any Letby truther who doesn't have at least one of these traits?
 
  • #838
Is it me ? ... or have so many of the people putting their balls in her court have an axe to grind
Team Letby is chock full of conspiracy cranks and weird people. A lot of them insist other convicted killers are innocent, based on no reason whatsoever. You also see a lot of "anti-vax" anger from them.
 
  • #839
  • #840
Yes, that's more like it.
They seem to have determined it was reasonable for her to have held that belief, so what’s your point?
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
128
Guests online
5,194
Total visitors
5,322

Forum statistics

Threads
633,265
Messages
18,638,776
Members
243,460
Latest member
joanjettofarc
Back
Top