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

[Ruthbullock]

Indeed!

This was a fantastically convoluted and intense case that went on for the best part of a year. It annoys me when people think they can poke holes in it (from either side) by quoting one or two randomly isolated facts and claim that they are in any way significant in undermining the case. It's especially annoying when people start quoting "facts" about jury deliberations which they absolutely, categorically, 100% cannot possibly know.

Numerous people have highlighted numerous contradictions, pages and pages worth. There is a definite irony to you highlighting the length of trial and its importance and your inability to process that it is taking that long for people to compare trial statements to statements made in the Thirwell inquiry.
People aren’t poking one or two holes, I would question whether there are actually holes being poked on this forum, there is more questions being raised about reliability and gaps in certain evidence being available- they aren’t people deliberately looking for holes or even reasons to proclaim that LL might be innocent.
Apart from a few people who think the case is closed and no longer warrants discussion, whilst having to share their view that we shouldn’t be discussing it- most of us are trying to have a genuine debate about the impact of this case and how it came about, alongside some of the contradictions that have since come out through a public inquiry.

 

[Ruthbullock]

What was the justification and purpose of these searches? I am struggling to see any justification in hindsight apart from pushing an agenda. Was there any belief that she had buried someone under the patio, and why did they need a ladder to get over the fence, when they could have walked through the house they were searching?

Police dig up the garden of the nurse Lucy Letby who was arrested over the deaths of babies at Cheshire hospital

Acquaintances of the nurse say she was kindhearted and express amazement her house is being searched

www.independent.co.uk

 

[katydid23]

Many people think they are 'poking holes' in the case. But are they really? Or are they just running in circles, squawking and really doing nothing at all?

 

[Ruthbullock]

Many people think they are 'poking holes' in the case. But are they really? Or are they just running in circles, squawking and really doing nothing at all?

Time will tell- what do you think are the main bits people are squawking about and going round in circles and will have no impact anyway- it’s just making noise?

Perhaps it’s JMO, but I always have had a higher bar on this forum than anywhere else- but I struggle to get any discussion or debate from people who still believe there was enough evidence presented, or arguments to support their perceptions from the trial backed up by documents from Thirlwall which are the whole statement (rather than the biased view of the press)- sharing historic press articles that have since been shown to display a massive bias, doesn’t really work.
I am now completely convinced that the case should have a retrial, I am still none the clearer as to whether a new jury would find her guilty- but there is a whole lot more evidence that has come to light and I’m not sure to ignore it creates a healthy justice system.

 

[Ruthbullock]

“She replied that “there were insufficient details in records” and it would probably have been impossible “to record in anything but real time” the precise causes of some collapses, including if there were any “sinister” cause. But she emphasised she had “concerns” about the unit’s response to babies’ medical conditions, referring to “subtle signs” being missed “or not escalated or responded to”. There may have been “an inherent system or leadership problem,” she said.”

This question was raised by Dr Hawdon at the time, and I think it has been the biggest question raised since- neither time has it been fully addressed, I remain optimistic it will be addressed by the inquiry- but it’s all a little too late.

The convictions of Lucy Letby: should they be overturned?

When the former nurse was found guilty of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others, a 1980s research paper was key to the prosecution’s case. But the author of the paper himself believes there has been a miscarriage of justice – and so too do other doctors

www.theguardian.com

 

[joltz]

The convictions of Lucy Letby: should they be overturned?

When the former nurse was found guilty of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others, a 1980s research paper was key to the prosecution’s case. But the author of the paper himself believes there has been a miscarriage of justice – and so too do other doctors

www.theguardian.com

I have given up making comments on this case due to the negative response. I would just mention that a man who saved 38 years in jail for a crime was released recently.

Doesn't have any bearing on Letby.

 

[Parker Knoll]

I think the point of the previous posters comment has been missed, yes they are different in the fundamentals of the evidence- but it’s not rocket science to realise that he was highlighting the length of time it took and the difficulties that occurred even when the science caught up in getting it re looked at and progressed through the judicial system and that was the comparison he was alluding to.

Yep - I am well aware of that Ruth.

 

[May72031]

Apart from a few people who think the case is closed and no longer warrants discussion...

Nobody here has that view. Most of us know that Letby most probably faces more charges.

 

[May72031]

but there is a whole lot more evidence that has come to light

Such as what?

 

[mummyshark]

On 29th June 2016 ( 6 days after baby O died) Dr Saludi (consultant) has looked through all the shift data and the reports and doesn’t appear as convinced as the others that this is reliable information and believes it should be handed to the police to investigate everyone, accepting that doctors should also be looked at. He appears to also be very aware that if there were suspicions it should not have got to this point at all. JMO reading between the lines- this is an articulate doctor, but he is wondering why they are attempting to put shift data that is unreliable together as evidence and also why it has not been taken externally already to the police.

Dr Gibbs in the same email chain asks if Dr Brearey can confirm LL was on all shifts and what other unexpected deaths there had been that perhaps weren’t included- again JMO, but he also seems not wholly convinced.

Dr J responds, rather than Dr B and tells them it’s being referred to the police, not responding to their further questions and basically shutting their hesitation and questions down- which seems a little unprofessional when their opinions had been requested in the first place.

So why on earth, did it not get referred to the police until 2017.

JMO- the short version is Dr S. raises that they should go to the police in June 2016 and open themselves all up to being investigated, if there are concerns (he himself feels they aren’t that reliable and the police would investigate it better). Dr J tells them they are going to the police, but it’s almost a year later (28 April 2017) this happens ( through the executives, not the doctors) and in the meantime he also tells everyone to stop asking questions and discussing it.

When looking through these documents- it’s worth noting dates and times on individual emails, as they aren’t always chronological.

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0003112.pdf

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0005077.pdf

Your interpretation of these emails is just that - an interpretation. How you have read it isn't how I have.

You have said that Dr Ravi shut down the conversation and said to not talk about it further. However that was first said by Ian Harvey, two emails before, and I read it that Dr Ravi was merely explaining why Ian Harvey had said that and in doing so was explaining why he was only responding briefly.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Your interpretation of these emails is just that - an interpretation. How you have read it isn't how I have.

You have said that Dr Ravi shut down the conversation and said to not talk about it further. However that was first said by Ian Harvey, two emails before, and I read it that Dr Ravi was merely explaining why Ian Harvey had said that and in doing so was explaining why he was only responding briefly.

That doesn’t explain why one consultant wanted to go to the police and they then didn’t go to the police, until after they had convinced the management to do so, a year later? ( although my suspicion is Dr J had shut down that idea in this email chain) Which was the question I asked after I had shared my opinion.

You believe Dr J may have just been repeating what Ian Harvey said - but that doesn’t explain why they didn’t go to the police at that point. Who was responsible? You believe it was Ian Harvey, and if you can find the link on Thirlwall even better, for deciding none of them should press forwards to the police.

Just curious where Ian Harvey said it before Dr J as I can’t see that timeline.
I have Dr S saying why have we not gone to the police 29 June 8.16, Dr J saying we aren’t going to the police at 8.49 and Ian Harvey advises no more communication should occur at 8.58 (with no mention of the police)

 

[Ruthbullock]

Nobody here has that view. Most of us know that Letby most probably faces more charges.

I fear you may be disappointed, she is currently jailed for life. Financially (with the remit of it being pursued in the public interest), I’m not sure even if they had evidence whether they would pursue it, the only reason they would pursue more charges at this point would be if the CCRC agreed a retrial, or she was released). It is over 10 years ago and the sheer fact they told us they were investigating more charges when the first trial finished and none have been forthcoming, I would be surprised if anymore come to be public knowledge, I think any suspicions about any other crimes will be quietly dropped, unless she is released. They may well be keeping them quietly on the back burner unless needed, but is that really getting justice for the victims, or is it a bit of a power play? Do you think there is a reason to delay any further charges at this point? Does the inquiry come into play here or public perception around the case? Or the CCRC application?

 

[Ruthbullock]

That doesn’t explain why one consultant wanted to go to the police and they then didn’t go to the police, until after they had convinced the management to do so, a year later? ( although my suspicion is Dr J had shut down that idea in this email chain) Which was the question I asked after I had shared my opinion.

You believe Dr J may have just been repeating what Ian Harvey said - but that doesn’t explain why they didn’t go to the police at that point. Who was responsible? You believe it was Ian Harvey, and if you can find the link on Thirlwall even better, for deciding none of them should press forwards to the police.

Just curious where Ian Harvey said it before Dr J as I can’t see that timeline.
I have Dr S saying why have we not gone to the police 29 June 8.16, Dr J saying we aren’t going to the police at 8.49 and Ian Harvey advises no more communication should occur at 8.58 (with no mention of the police)

And here is an email chain from 29 June 2016 8.32 where Ian Harvey also suggests they go to the police and Alison Kelly agrees and has emailed Stephen Brearey to suggest as much- this is all happening at the same time on the same day- consultants below Dr J and Dr B suggest the police are consulted, execs above them also tell them on the same day at a similar time they feel they should go to the police- so why was it not referred to the police? Only one person that morning on all the email chains said that they shouldn’t go to the police.

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0047571_1,2.pdf

 

[Baby baby Jane]

What was the justification and purpose of these searches? I am struggling to see any justification in hindsight apart from pushing an agenda. Was there any belief that she had buried someone under the patio, and why did they need a ladder to get over the fence, when they could have walked through the house they were searching?

Police dig up the garden of the nurse Lucy Letby who was arrested over the deaths of babies at Cheshire hospital

Acquaintances of the nurse say she was kindhearted and express amazement her house is being searched

www.independent.co.uk

Looking for evidence that was buried, sim cards, phones, other items ….. they left no stone unturned.
Possible could not access the area which is why needed ladder.
Investigation - police will be asked “was your search thorough?”

Why is police search an outrage? It’s just people, doing their job.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Looking for evidence that was buried, sim cards, phones, other items ….. they left no stone unturned.
Possible could not access the area which is why needed ladder.
Investigation - police will be asked “was your search thorough?”

Why is police search an outrage? It’s just people, doing their job.

It’s not an outrage by any means- but why invite the press? IMO it was presented as though they were searching for bodies, not SIM cards. It’s a bold approach for the police, and often not an approach taken, so this was a deliberate move to inform the press- why?

 

[OhDannyBoi]

What was the justification and purpose of these searches? I am struggling to see any justification in hindsight apart from pushing an agenda. Was there any belief that she had buried someone under the patio, and why did they need a ladder to get over the fence, when they could have walked through the house they were searching?

Police dig up the garden of the nurse Lucy Letby who was arrested over the deaths of babies at Cheshire hospital

Acquaintances of the nurse say she was kindhearted and express amazement her house is being searched

www.independent.co.uk

Searching for evidence isn't an agenda. It's investigative work.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Searching for evidence isn't an agenda. It's investigative work.

I would assume the police can do that without having to bring the press along?

 

[Baby baby Jane]

It’s not an outrage by any means- but why invite the press? IMO it was presented as though they were searching for bodies, not SIM cards. It’s a bold approach for the police, and often not an approach taken, so this was a deliberate move to inform the press- why?

Presenting as body search? Ok.

 

[Furore]

And here is an email chain from 29 June 2016 8.32 where Ian Harvey also suggests they go to the police and Alison Kelly agrees and has emailed Stephen Brearey to suggest as much- this is all happening at the same time on the same day- consultants below Dr J and Dr B suggest the police are consulted, execs above them also tell them on the same day at a similar time they feel they should go to the police- so why was it not referred to the police? Only one person that morning on all the email chains said that they shouldn’t go to the police.

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0047571_1,2.pdf

Isn’t he just saying he wants to meet/confirm with the execs to get their formal agreement to get the police involved?

He also wants to check with his medical defence union what his whistleblower protection without the exec agreement would be before going to police “off his own back”. That’s just because there are ways of doing things and involving external agencies should be escalated up the chain of command (I have posted whistleblower policies from NHS trusts on this forum previously).

I certainly don’t think his emails are preventing anyone talking to the police. Indeed his last seems to confirm his belief that the trust are going to the police?

You seem to have a bias against Dr J that is causing some unusual interpretation of this correspondence.
JMO

 

[Furore]

Presenting as body search? Ok.

How did the police invite the press? Weren’t they just doing their job, looking for hidden items?

Given they were digging at the home of a once in a generation possible serial killer nurse, fairly sure any self respecting press would attend themselves!

Are you seriously asking if there is a conspiracy theory by the consultants, police and entire establishment to unlawfully convict an innocent nurse? Like dude, why?

All MOO