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]

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. 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.

We should get rid of the courts and have trial by podcast do you mean?

 

[May72031]

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. 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.

What sort of questions do "many people do not want to consider"?

 

[Ruthbullock]

I have started listening to a true crime podcast by an American with a British investigative journalist. It raised a point which I think is sometimes forgotten on this page when we are only allowed to link MSM. In the UK MSM are not allowed to do anything other than report a story told in court where a trial is pending, otherwise they are in contempt of court. They can’t express opinions or doubts about the validity or be seen to do anything other than portray a story as told in court- they are legally not allowed to pick holes in the expert testimony or investigate further and gather and publish different evidence. This is different to how US MSM works. This is why blogs started and were used by various professionals to dispute the claims as they legally could not get published in MSM or be reported upon. This is also why a press conference was called for the new experts, as without the outlandish performance of a press conference, no paper was allowed to publish it, as they didn’t have a story to hang it to and would be unable to report it without a press conference being held by the defence team. There is also a legal allowance with the permission of the speaker in parliament, that politicians can raise questions- again this is legally allowed to be published- hence David Davis being involved and it being discussed in this manner.

 

[Ruthbullock]

A second point made was discussing Child K, this got me thinking, rather than being directly discussed- but many posters believe the jury opinion should be final- but in the case of Child k we have one jury who said not guilty and a second who said guilty. I will go and read again later as I can’t currently remember- but what was so overwhelmingly different in the evidence to convince a second jury, or could it have been impacted by unconscious bias?

 

[Parker Knoll]

A second point made was discussing Child K, this got me thinking, rather than being directly discussed- but many posters believe the jury opinion should be final- but in the case of Child k we have one jury who said not guilty and a second who said guilty. I will go and read again later as I can’t currently remember- but what was so overwhelmingly different in the evidence to convince a second jury, or could it have been impacted by unconscious bias?

You are factually incorrect here.
The first jury for baby K couldn’t reach any verdict so no verdict entered hence the re trial.
No jury has ever found her NG on baby K

 

[Ruthbullock]

You are factually incorrect here.
The first jury for baby K couldn’t reach any verdict so no verdict entered hence the re trial.
No jury has ever found her NG on baby K

I will rephrase - she wasn't charged and found guilty by the first jury - because they couldn’t reach a unanimous decision, and was found guilty by the second, so my question was what was presented that convinced a second jury-what evidence? It would be interesting to discuss.

 

[Tortoise]

I have started listening to a true crime podcast by an American with a British investigative journalist. It raised a point which I think is sometimes forgotten on this page when we are only allowed to link MSM. In the UK MSM are not allowed to do anything other than report a story told in court where a trial is pending, otherwise they are in contempt of court. They can’t express opinions or doubts about the validity or be seen to do anything other than portray a story as told in court- they are legally not allowed to pick holes in the expert testimony or investigate further and gather and publish different evidence. This is different to how US MSM works. This is why blogs started and were used by various professionals to dispute the claims as they legally could not get published in MSM or be reported upon. This is also why a press conference was called for the new experts, as without the outlandish performance of a press conference, no paper was allowed to publish it, as they didn’t have a story to hang it to and would be unable to report it without a press conference being held by the defence team. There is also a legal allowance with the permission of the speaker in parliament, that politicians can raise questions- again this is legally allowed to be published- hence David Davis being involved and it being discussed in this manner.

There is no trial pending, and the reporting restrictions were lifted three months before McDonald took over the case. There is nothing preventing MSM from reporting on expert reports sent to them by McDonald.

 

[Tortoise]

I will rephrase - she wasn't charged and found guilty by the first jury - because they couldn’t reach a unanimous decision, and was found guilty by the second, so my question was what was presented that convinced a second jury-what evidence?

Probably the correction of the logging of the doorswipe data.

In the first trial Dr Jayaram remembered it happening a few minutes after the designated nurse left to go to the labour ward, at about the time he was on the phone. Those times didn't tally up, until it was realised that the doorswipe data on that particular occasion was the time the nurse actually swiped back in, not the time she left.

IMO

 

[Furore]

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. 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.

Have you gone through the trial material? It adds such a new dimension.

I would also suggest that the doctors treating the babies, the regional networks, the parents, the pathologists, the police, the prosecution experts and the jury considered nearly a year of evidence on each case, including post mortem findings and expert testimony…nothing particularly new has come to light. At the end of the day it is for the jury, not the overall public, who I suspect have at most watched / read a few hours of suggestions and testimony - often third hand by those who were also not at the trial - but the jury who sad through hundreds and thousands of hours of evidence, who are there to make decisions.

IMO and respectfully the first thing people suspect in deaths of hospitalised babies is a medical condition or an omission of care..,not murder. Look at the number of litigations and serious incidents in NHS trusts and then look at the number of murder accusations….i think you will find one overwhelmingly exceeds the other. And is very much at the forefront of people’s minds…all MOO.

 

[Moll]

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.

I'm sure you're right, Tortoise...and I am out of my depth!
Time for me to abandon this until there is some development, I think.
Happy Easter, all!

 

[joltz]

A second point made was discussing Child K, this got me thinking, rather than being directly discussed- but many posters believe the jury opinion should be final- but in the case of Child k we have one jury who said not guilty and a second who said guilty. I will go and read again later as I can’t currently remember- but what was so overwhelmingly different in the evidence to convince a second jury, or could it have been impacted by unconscious bias?

1. The timeline became more realistic with the swipe data correction.

2. A second witness placed Letby cotside and first responder to one of the collapses of baby K, with quite a detailed testimony about Letby shouting everyone for help and using neopuff on the baby. Lucy Letby decides she has no memory of this whatsoever. That's now 2 eye witnesses placing Letby at 2 seperate desaturations of baby K, while she claims to have no memory of either. I think it reinforced Dr Jayarams narrative. It was his word Vs Letby but now a second witness was placing Letby cotside and she is again insisting on having no memory of the incident.

3. Lucy Letby decided she had no memory whatsoever of the entire shift in the retrial of baby K while also facing questioning about searching for the family name years later and offering no explanation.

 

[Ruthbullock]

There is no trial pending, and the reporting restrictions were lifted three months before McDonald took over the case. There is nothing preventing MSM from reporting on expert reports sent to them by McDonald.

The reporting restrictions now apply due to the Thirlwall Inquiry

Notes to editors:

• The Thirlwall Inquiry has been set up to examine events at the Countess of Chester Hospital and their implications following the trial, and subsequent convictions, of former neonatal nurse Lucy Letby of murder and attempted murder of babies at the hospital.
• Reporting restrictions apply. Copies of the reporting restrictions should be available to accredited media from the Judicial Office press office:

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-documents/Restriction%20Order%20Part%20A%20-%20Amended%2013%20September%202024.pdf

 

[Ruthbullock]

A list of witnesses who were offered special measures- some are quite obvious, others less clear

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-documents/Special-Measures-Order-Witnesses-updated-31-October.pdf

 

[Tortoise]

The reporting restrictions now apply due to the Thirlwall Inquiry

Notes to editors:

• The Thirlwall Inquiry has been set up to examine events at the Countess of Chester Hospital and their implications following the trial, and subsequent convictions, of former neonatal nurse Lucy Letby of murder and attempted murder of babies at the hospital.
• Reporting restrictions apply. Copies of the reporting restrictions should be available to accredited media from the Judicial Office press office:

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-documents/Restriction%20Order%20Part%20A%20-%20Amended%2013%20September%202024.pdf

Those reporting restrictions at Thirlwall, related to the publication of the names of the children etc, are completely unrelated to reporting restrictions related to publishing material that would prejudice or interfere with a defendant's trial.

 

[Ruthbullock]

1. The timeline became more realistic with the swipe data correction.

2. A second witness placed Letby cotside and first responder to one of the collapses of baby K, with quite a detailed testimony about Letby shouting everyone for help and using neopuff on the baby. Lucy Letby decides she has no memory of this whatsoever. That's now 2 eye witnesses placing Letby at 2 seperate desaturations of baby K, while she claims to have no memory of either. I think it reinforced Dr Jayarams narrative. It was his word Vs Letby but now a second witness was placing Letby cotside and she is again insisting on having no memory of the incident.

3. Lucy Letby decided she had no memory whatsoever of the entire shift in the retrial of baby K while also facing questioning about searching for the family name years later and offering no explanation.

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,?

 

[Ruthbullock]

Those reporting restrictions at Thirlwall, related to the publication of the names of the children etc, are completely unrelated to reporting restrictions related to publishing material that would prejudice or interfere with a defendant's trial.

How do you know what reporting restrictions are in place? The only way to have access to the full reporting restrictions are if you are a recognised journalist- and journalists are saying they are restricted from discussing more than just the names of the children etc to protect anonymity.

 

[Tortoise]

How do you know what reporting restrictions are in place? The only way to have access to the full reporting restrictions are if you are a recognised journalist- and journalists are saying they are restricted from discussing more than just the names of the children etc to protect anonymity.

Which journalists are saying that?

 

[Ruthbullock]

Which journalists are saying that?

That’s not my question- my question was how do you know what reporting restrictions are in place? I’m asking the question- albeit based on a discussion I listened to on a podcast, but that was not the point of discussion, just one that I wanted an answer to. We don’t know what reporting restrictions are in place is the answer- we do know though that we are only privy to restricted information.

 

[Tortoise]

That’s not my question- my question was how do you know what reporting restrictions are in place? I’m asking the question- albeit based on a discussion I listened to on a podcast, but that was not the point of discussion, just one that I wanted an answer to. We don’t know what reporting restrictions are in place is the answer- we do know though that we are only privy to restricted information.

She is not facing a trial at the moment, which means there is no court order in place in relation to Letby.

An Inquiry is not a legal proceeding against her.

"The sub judice rule regulates the publication of matters which are under consideration by the court.
Matters are considered to be sub judice (Latin for 'under judgment') once legal proceedings become active.

Criminal proceedings are deemed active once a person is arrested, a warrant for arrest has been issued, a summons has been issued or a person has been charged and remain active until conviction."
The sub judice rule and contempt of court

I don't think the journalist you are listening to knows what he's talking about. MOO

 

[Ruthbullock]

She is not facing a trial at the moment, which means there is no court order in place in relation to Letby.

An Inquiry is not a legal proceeding against her.

"The sub judice rule regulates the publication of matters which are under consideration by the court.
Matters are considered to be sub judice (Latin for 'under judgment') once legal proceedings become active.

Criminal proceedings are deemed active once a person is arrested, a warrant for arrest has been issued, a summons has been issued or a person has been charged and remain active until conviction."
The sub judice rule and contempt of court

I don't think the journalist you are listening to knows what he's talking about. MOO

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.