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

[JosieJo]

any chance you could tell us what the problems there are? read the article understand the basics of it but dont see any reason as to why doc choc would be so insistent on the chief investigating stuff as opposed to the other. hes not just being difficult i assume or going for the money.

I'm not sure to be honest . The article implies he still works at the same Trust. Also the claim was for how the trust "proposed" to carry out the investigation...so presumably hasn't been carried out yet ?

 

[Parker Knoll]

I’m not sure either Jo
I personally would be running a mile from any further litigation and my name or its many pseudonyms making headlines along side Letby but yet here we are.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Here is the judgement.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Dr-MN-v-NHS-Foundation-Trust-L.pdf

 

[Sweeper2000]

so weird. this is employment law i think so really not sure myself at all. what i can figure out is

"The judge ruled: "It is a term of Dr MN's contract of employment that the case manager should be the medical director, in this case, the chief medical officer, for the matters that are the subject of the PRESENT investigation.""

Lucy Letby colleague wins legal case over hospital visits probe

The medic wins a High Court case over a NHS trust investigation into what he knew about the nurse.

www.bbc.co.uk

was wondering if you might know the differences between the chief medical officer but it doesnt actually state who the hospital was trying to get to do it so dont know who they asked. was trying to figure out why he would have an issue with it.

hope the mods are ok with this but chatgpt kinda confirmed what i was already thinking. the chief medical officer simply would have all the knowledge required including limitations of the investigation process to do it properly and within the law, especially within what was drawn up as part of doc chocs contract.

my thinking was the hospital simply would not appoint someone without the credentials to do it. so why the insistence from doc choc? unless hes just trying to ensure it really was as watertight and proper as it could be. its just a contractual dispute i think so no money involved but may have possibly affected his work so he would want the proper processes to be followed.

eta yeh chatgpt agrees the chief med officer would do everything properly and to a t so i think doc choc was simply trying to protect his employment which makes sense. he was also as were the other staff totally unawares as to why she was supsended

 

[Parker Knoll]

His identity has already been shared countless times online - not helped by the Thirwell Enquiry literally not redacting it - this will follow him round wherever he practices.
It’s a bizarre judgment.

 

[Sweeper2000]

His identity has already been shared countless times online - not helped by the Thirwell Enquiry literally not redacting it - this will follow him round wherever he practices.
It’s a bizarre judgment.

why bizarre? just coz it highlights him and doesnt protect him really?

 

[joltz]

Good job omitting the last part of the sentence “and disappeared as soon as..” which is clearly the relevant part

Rashes are so common in newborns and there are different types. The Drs and nurses would obviously encounter these on a day to day basis.

Therefore it's absolutely crucial that we have the testimony of over a dozen witnesses who describe the rash as highly unusual. Multiple Drs and nurses described a rash, the likes of which they have never seen before in their medical careers.

In the very first case, baby A, they tried to record photographs of a rash, because it was so unusual.

So, what do you think this highly unusual rash was, that was documented in every single case where air embolism is alleged?

 

[WaneLyrical]

Rashes are so common in newborns and there are different types. The Drs and nurses would obviously encounter these on a day to day basis.

Therefore it's absolutely crucial that we have the testimony of over a dozen witnesses who describe the rash as highly unusual. Multiple Drs and nurses described a rash, the likes of which they have never seen before in their medical careers.

In the very first case, baby A, they tried to record photographs of a rash, because it was so unusual.

So, what do you think this highly unusual rash was, that was documented in every single case where air embolism is alleged?

They were all different rashes or discolouration, different placements, different appearances, different durations. The idea that there was a consistent rash across the air embolism cases is imaginary.

 

[Dotta]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1951260578166477094

 

[Sweeper2000]

They were all different rashes or discolouration, different placements, different appearances, different durations. The idea that there was a consistent rash across the air embolism cases is imaginary.

the idea that a rash in association with air embolism would be uniform is also imaginary. there is always clinical variability with anything let alone AE which was presumably done with varied amounts of air anyways. as an example infection will present itself differently with symptoms appearing over time differently from one case to the enxt. mayb bthe main point with the rashes was that a rash was present. jmo

 

[WaneLyrical]

the idea that a rash in association with air embolism would be uniform is also imaginary. there is always clinical variability with anything let alone AE which was presumably done with varied amounts of air anyways. as an example infection will present itself differently with symptoms appearing over time differently from one case to the enxt. mayb bthe main point with the rashes was that a rash was present. jmo

The idea of a consistent presentation is not imaginary, it’s in the literature. And the discolouration is not still visible hours and days later (as was the case for both Baby A and B) unless tissue damage has occurred. By ignoring the literature we can simply say any random skin discolouration or rash is air embolism.

 

[Sweeper2000]

The idea of a consistent presentation is not imaginary, it’s in the literature. And the discolouration is not still visible hours and days later (as was the case for both Baby A and B) unless tissue damage has occurred. By ignoring the literature we can simply say any random skin discolouration or rash is air embolism.

ur sources?

 

[Charlot123]

It's not the same, but OK.

It doesn’t change the story. Someone looks at the list with the shifts, names and “events” and this is how the story starts? It is too subjective. Either the doctor is paranoid or…unless…

Unless the whole story started differently? I can imagine different situations, Lucy came to a confession and told the priest, or she told her therapist or another person living with her heard something. Someone reported because of conscience but had to be protected because of the profession. This is the only logical way to look at it.

But unless we hear this beginning, if it exists, (and we have not! Nothing!), the whole story how it started doesn’t make sense. The shift sheet makes no sense, Dr. Breary’s thinking makes no sense, Dr. Jayaram’s deposition is simply untrue.

I do have a certain suspicion that we were presented only with the tail of the story, and this is why it is so illogical. But since we were not told anything else, we are where we are. I think that Lucy’s story will end with letting her out because the public has unanswered questions.

 

[marynnu]

It doesn’t change the story. Someone looks at the list with the shifts, names and “events” and this is how the story starts? It is too subjective. Either the doctor is paranoid or…unless…

Unless the whole story started differently? I can imagine different situations, Lucy came to a confession and told the priest, or she told her therapist or another person living with her heard something. Someone reported because of conscience but had to be protected because of the profession. This is the only logical way to look at it.

But unless we hear this beginning, if it exists, (and we have not! Nothing!), the whole story how it started doesn’t make sense. The shift sheet makes no sense, Dr. Breary’s thinking makes no sense, Dr. Jayaram’s deposition is simply untrue.

I do have a certain suspicion that we were presented only with the tail of the story, and this is why it is so illogical. But since we were not told anything else, we are where we are. I think that Lucy’s story will end with letting her out because the public has unanswered questions.

Your idea of logic is very odd. I have no idea why people have a problem with the shift chart. There were a number of unusual occurrences, she was on shift for them. It was a starting point, wasn't it. Not exactly hard to understand.

 

[Parker Knoll]

The public has unanswered questions ?
Is this comment a joke ?

 

[marynnu]

The idea of a consistent presentation is not imaginary, it’s in the literature. And the discolouration is not still visible hours and days later (as was the case for both Baby A and B) unless tissue damage has occurred. By ignoring the literature we can simply say any random skin discolouration or rash is air embolism.

Nobody has much experience of air embolism in neonates, do they. So it's very hard to say how varied the presentation might be. There were a few possible variables - how much air was administered, how quickly, by what route (peripheral cannula, long line) and where it ended up. It's dangerous because it cuts off blood supply. So tissue damage is perfectly possible.

 

[Sweeper2000]

just looking at Dr lee's paper. even the lee sign was noted to be present in only some of the cases less than 30% of cases of massive venous air embolism. his paper also states that its presence is affected by numerous things such as the position the patient is in suggesting but not proof of great variability in the presentations of air embolism. Dr Le raised this point himself at the conference and said it was one fo the reasons why he thought his paper had been misrepresented or misunderstood. but as with many things in this it was a supporting piece of evidence as it was correctly stated the rashes or skin colour issues was not the onyl thing used to diagnose air embolism as stated by the appellate judges after the conference.

 

[May72031]

But unless we hear this beginning, if it exists, (and we have not! Nothing!), the whole story how it started doesn’t make sense. The shift sheet makes no sense.

Eh? What confuses you about the shift sheet? What "beginning" are you talking about?

 

[joltz]

They were all different rashes or discolouration, different placements, different appearances, different durations. The idea that there was a consistent rash across the air embolism cases is imaginary.

The rashes were similar. Medical professionals gave testimony where they stated that they had only ever seen these rashes in other babies in this case.

What you are saying is not true. It was evidences in court on multiple occasions.

Let's not pretend that there was random different, unusual ashes. The evidence says different, the people who saw it said different, the medical professionals who judged it said different.

 

[katydid23]

No I’m saying somebody else who also saw this rash, the parent, said it was still visible the following day, did you even read what I posted?

I thought the testimony was that these rashes 'came and went.' So just because one was visible the next day, that doesn't mean it was visible continuously.