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

[Sweeper2000]

for the same reasons we saw in the trial. the decline and ultimate demise of the babies didnt follow known medical pathways. three babies dying clustered together but all bearing the hallmarks of infectious decline would not be deemed unusual although may ring the red bell of clinical practice as in "is the units hygiene practices being adhered to?". three babies dying and the docs all scratching their heads going "we dont really know" would leave the authorities including hospital management questioning stuff and reviewing.

 

[Serononin]

When one looks at that tragic case of the triplets, LL's actions and intentions are so obvious. She was out of control and wasn't even trying to be subtle. It blows my mind that the naysayers cannot see her guilt in those cases.

It breaks my heart to think about the surviving triplet growing up alone. I don't know how as a parent you'd even begin to go about explaining to your child what happened to their siblings

 

[Sweeper2000]

It breaks my heart to think about the surviving triplet growing up alone. I don't know how as a parent you'd even begin to go about explaining to your child what happened to their siblings

Cant remember where exactly but there is an article or maybe even a talk given by some of the parents covering that exact conversation. might be in their impact statements. i tried reading it again but its too sad and upsetting.

The victims of Lucy Letby – and full statements from their parents

The infant victims of Lucy Letby's horrific crimes all have names - but they've been kept private during the lengthy trial against the former nurse, now the UK's most prolific child serial killer of modern times. They are all sons, daughters, siblings and grandchildren.

news.sky.com

 

[mummyshark]

I only started following this trial a couple of months in. It was the first trial I've read about on WS. As time went on, I became certain that she was guilty. When she was found guilty my initial reaction was that justice had been served, however I then had a massive wobble (all three of my children were born premature so it was always quite an emotional trial for me). The day we found out she was convicted I said to my husband "but what if she's innocent?" She wasn't and IMO she isn't, I just wanted to hold onto that idea because the thought that a neonatal nurse could do this was terrifying to me, because it presented an additional risk to my children when they were already so vulnerable. Perhaps this is why people want to defend her and make excuses for her, not because it's her, but because it's too difficult to believe that someone could harm someone so vulnerable.

I will say that in light of the trepidation, and given I didn't follow the trial from the beginning, I have gone back to the very early threads about this case. The one person everyone should really listen to is @Marantz4250b. Re-reading the early threads I'm so irritated by their posts, all in defense of Letby. But that's why their opinion is so important now - they followed the evidence and it lead them to change their mind.

 

[May72031]

as an awful lot was shared after the trials through the inquiry and it casts doubts on what was originally portrayed.

What are you claiming "casts doubt" on what was originally portrayed?

 

[joltz]

Perhaps stop reading social media random posts and then posting as though it was said on this forum , rather than grouping me in with your theory and then making out that I have said that whilst quoting my post? FYI- I have always believed the doctors didn’t do enough and that will never change, even if Letby is found guilty of more charges. I never said, ever that I believed she was innocent and she was scapegoated. I do however believe for transparencies sake the evidence should be relooked at, as an awful lot was shared after the trials through the inquiry and it casts doubts on what was originally portrayed.

They still can't bring themselves to utter a bad word about Letby. It's utterly bizarre. Even if Letby is convicted of more deaths let's focus on the Drs not doing enough eh and not the person causing the actual harm.

Let's not forget, If it wasn't for the Drs, Letby would possibly still be out there causing further harm.

 

[Ruthbullock]

They still can't bring themselves to utter a bad word about Letby. It's utterly bizarre. Even if Letby is convicted of more deaths let's focus on the Drs not doing enough eh and not the person causing the actual harm.

Let's not forget, If it wasn't for the Drs, Letby would possibly still be out there causing further harm.

I know, I know and we loop round again. I’m even at the point now where I have sympathy for the CCRC and Lady Thirlwall; having to generate reports and opinions, and in respect of the inquiry coming up with recommendations that differ from the ones that should have been followed in 2015 and weren’t. Should we appreciate that the doctors raised the red flag, of course- should we accept that they did it in a timely manner with due diligence following their own policies- they didn’t, and there should be an acceptance of that, and in their senior roles, that they have some repercussions professionally. When one of the gang of 7 suggested going to the police (albeit they weren’t convinced she had done anything wrong, and were just advising their colleagues of what they would do in that situation), instead of trying to compile tables and stats to report up the chain- Dr J and Dr B shut them down in an email chain submitted to the inquiry and continued on their own independent investigations. I honestly apologise for sounding like a broken record (I know you are bored of me saying it)- but where were the Drs SUDIC and Datix forms logging all these incidents and concerns, if they were so afraid of not following external procedures, at least follow your internal ones. I may be appearing as difficult, but actually I feel the public should get answers- why the lack of even basic post mortems, a fairly standard thing., and that’s ignoring the fact we now know if they had more serious concerns they could have requested a more detailed forensic post mortem. Even if she was magically acquitted- there will still be questions over whether she is guilty or not- and that boils down to lack of record keeping and notes from all staff, including doctors. Yes scientific understanding evolves, yes medical professionals disagree or can provide alternative theories- but doubts in this case have arisen, and I fear it may end up as a case of not enough of that “tedious, pointless” paperwork being completed and subsequently the picture can be muddied by either side and no one can state with confidence what occurred.

 

[Ruthbullock]

What are you claiming "casts doubt" on what was originally portrayed?

I will post more extracts when anyone wants to respond, but I have posted lots of contradictions and never had a response that includes evidence or even press reports (unless cut snippets out of context)- so I’m pretty much done with sharing and researching stuff from the inquiry. I’m not going to spend time researching things for people to tell me “she was found guilty” or “you are stupid”- as we are now way beyond that point in general discussions. If it’s as cut and dry as you believe, the CCRC will respond soon enough and quash all doubt, and the outcome of the inquiry will follow suit.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I will post more extracts when anyone wants to respond, but I have posted lots of contradictions and never had a response that includes evidence or even press reports (unless cut snippets out of context)- so I’m pretty much done with sharing and researching stuff from the inquiry. I’m not going to spend time researching things for people to tell me “she was found guilty” or “you are stupid”- as we are now way beyond that point in general discussions. If it’s as cut and dry as you believe, the CCRC will respond soon enough and quash all doubt, and the outcome of the inquiry will follow suit.

would you give me your strongest point that you think would contradict her guilty verdict? i won't lie I didn't follow the inquiry even half as closely as the trial itself so don't expect too much. My only takeaway from it was that it didnt really change anything from the trial itself and that yes as expected it put the managers on the road to what we have seen recently.

 

[Ruthbullock]

would you give me your strongest point that you think would contradict her guilty verdict? i won't lie I didn't follow the inquiry even half as closely as the trial itself so don't expect too much. My only takeaway from it was that it didnt really change anything from the trial itself and that yes as expected it put the managers on the road to what we have seen recently.

I don’t particularly have a strongest, in fact I don’t think anything in isolation is particularly strong- it is just enough to make me question what was presented as fact and was perhaps missing some underlying information at trial. Nothing directly exonerates her. I merely posted as the inquiry went along- let me have a look and a think.

 

[katydid23]

I know, I know and we loop round again. I’m even at the point now where I have sympathy for the CCRC and Lady Thirlwall; having to generate reports and opinions, and in respect of the inquiry coming up with recommendations that differ from the ones that should have been followed in 2015 and weren’t. Should we appreciate that the doctors raised the red flag, of course- should we accept that they did it in a timely manner with due diligence following their own policies- they didn’t, and there should be an acceptance of that, and in their senior roles, that they have some repercussions professionally. When one of the gang of 7 suggested going to the police (albeit they weren’t convinced she had done anything wrong, and were just advising their colleagues of what they would do in that situation), instead of trying to compile tables and stats to report up the chain- Dr J and Dr B shut them down in an email chain submitted to the inquiry and continued on their own independent investigations. I honestly apologise for sounding like a broken record (I know you are bored of me saying it)- but where were the Drs SUDIC and Datix forms logging all these incidents and concerns, if they were so afraid of not following external procedures, at least follow your internal ones. I may be appearing as difficult, but actually I feel the public should get answers- why the lack of even basic post mortems, a fairly standard thing., and that’s ignoring the fact we now know if they had more serious concerns they could have requested a more detailed forensic post mortem. Even if she was magically acquitted- there will still be questions over whether she is guilty or not- and that boils down to lack of record keeping and notes from all staff, including doctors. Yes scientific understanding evolves, yes medical professionals disagree or can provide alternative theories- but doubts in this case have arisen, and I fear it may end up as a case of not enough of that “tedious, pointless” paperwork being completed and subsequently the picture can be muddied by either side and no one can state with confidence what occurred.

Hindsight is 2020. SURE, it would have been nice if every doctor and consultant sat and wrote extensive notes after each observation of a baby each shift. It would have been great if every questionable action was written up on data forms or reported to superiors. But one of the problems was that Lucy was very cunning. Much of the time she was writing fake medical logs and sending false messages through texts, etc---So they could not see clearly everything she was doing.

It would have been great if the doctors had been able to stop Lucy more quickly. I wish so much that they had been able to do so. But they were THE ONLY PEOPLE that were on that mission at that time. So I am not going to point fingers at them.

They were getting pushback from their superiors and administrators. Their own jobs and reputations were in danger each time they tried to bring attention to suspicions about Letby. They were threatened with termination.

It got to the point where they were all going to walk off the floor in protest unless Lucy was put at a desk job while investigation continued.

And the Union was threatening to sue to keep Letby working on the floor, and wanting to penalise the doctors for harassment of that poor nurse. They were supposed to send her an apology when she returned to work.

I really think it is wrong-headed to attack the doctors who were the ONLY ones that spear headed the drive to take Lucy down. The nurses union would not even consider the possibility that she was the problem and fought hard to keep her in the nurseries.

 

[JosieJo]

I will post more extracts when anyone wants to respond, but I have posted lots of contradictions and never had a response that includes evidence or even press reports (unless cut snippets out of context)- so I’m pretty much done with sharing and researching stuff from the inquiry. I’m not going to spend time researching things for people to tell me “she was found guilty” or “you are stupid”- as we are now way beyond that point in general discussions. If it’s as cut and dry as you believe, the CCRC will respond soon enough and quash all doubt, and the outcome of the inquiry will follow suit.

I don't think the CCRC will give us anymore to be honest ...I think it's almost a given they will pass it on ... it's the COA ..and personally I think handing it on again to the COA will not give us any indication of "doubt" in this particular case. I'm just not sure they will want to make a decision

 

[Deleted member 367982]

Hindsight is 2020. SURE, it would have been nice if every doctor and consultant sat and wrote extensive notes after each observation of a baby each shift. It would have been great if every questionable action was written up on data forms or reported to superiors. But one of the problems was that Lucy was very cunning. Much of the time she was writing fake medical logs and sending false messages through texts, etc---So they could not see clearly everything she was doing.

It would have been great if the doctors had been able to stop Lucy more quickly. I wish so much that they had been able to do so. But they were THE ONLY PEOPLE that were on that mission at that time. So I am not going to point fingers at them.

They were getting pushback from their superiors and administrators. Their own jobs and reputations were in danger each time they tried to bring attention to suspicions about Letby. They were threatened with termination.

It got to the point where they were all going to walk off the floor in protest unless Lucy was put at a desk job while investigation continued.

And the Union was threatening to sue to keep Letby working on the floor, and wanting to penalise the doctors for harassment of that poor nurse. They were supposed to send her an apology when she returned to work.

I really think it is wrong-headed to attack the doctors who were the ONLY ones that spear headed the drive to take Lucy down. The nurses union would not even consider the possibility that she was the problem and fought hard to keep her in the nurseries.

The doctors would have been in the same position as those trying to bring cyclist Lance Armstrong to justice, or pedophile priests etc. Those who allowed LL to proceed murdering for so long should be held accountable, just like those covering up for the Lance Armstrongs or miscreant priests of the world.
Look at the doctor who alerted authorities to a potential mass murderer in Erin Paterson in their midst. What happened to him, did he get an award, no he's facing the sack.
Something's butchered the process to bring the LL's of the world to justice. If it's enough evidence they want, all the evidence they needed to take action was right before them but the superiors and administrators of LL, for example, chose to take the wrong side. Fancy having to apologise to a serial killer in order to keep your job.
Something seriously needs to change before another LL can have a virtual field day in full view of those working around them. That's just MOO.

 

[JosieJo]

No one wants a miscarriage of justice..I certainly do not and if the court of Appeal feel the need to act on any of her new teams "theories" so be it.

But personally im sick of reading about these "experts" theories of other possible causes of death .... when the clinical picture and sudden nature of collapse doesn't fit.

Of course there are other possibilities but these possibilities do not present with such sudden and unexpected deterioration..or the expected blood results.

Then you have the pattern of the babies not responding to resuscitation drugs and procedure.

Not one of these babies collapsed with anyone present...no parents...no staff ...only letby

The altering of records shown to be inaccurate

The manipulation messages sent to colleagues

Collapses occurring minutes after her "Dr friend" left the unit with a female Dr.

Collapses occurring when Dr friend was in clinic to get him to the unit.

Collapses occurring directly after her frustration...shown by messages

 

[Rohmer]

I must be deranged then ...or missed something as I've not read anything

I think it’s easy to have become emotionally invested in her guilt if you followed the original trial closely. The way the prosecution presented the case against her, in a maximally emotive fashion, the way the defence absolutely shat the bed in all kinds of ways, and the absolute catalogue of errors throughout the whole debacle involving many different actors, it’s easy to become invested in a case involving babies dying. And then, since the trial I don’t think anyone following could argue that they have been carefully dispassionate in weighing all the evidence and human nature means we’re all guilty of further contributing to polarisation, calling the other side names. It’s done out of a sense of righteousness to be on the side of truth given all the ramifications involving the safety of children that flow from that.

But the evidence now seems clear that she’s innocent never mind that she’s had a fair trial. It’s pretty unarguable that she hasn’t, as unarguable as it gets. The information about the failures and misrepresentations are all out there.

I think we can all agree that all we care about is getting to the bottom of what really happened so we can prevent similar things occurring again and putting more babies at risk.

Despite what to me looks like a mountain of exonerating evidence, I’m still keeping an open mind that these new charges might bring to light some new compelling evidence. But it’s seems more likely that this is one last face-saving manoeuvre to announce these long-teased charges before the reckoning has to begin.

 

[Sarahlou]

Lucy is guilty and hopefully that verdict will remain forever.

 

[Rohmer]

No one wants a miscarriage of justice..I certainly do not and if the court of Appeal feel the need to act on any of her new teams "theories" so be it.

But personally im sick of reading about these "experts" theories of other possible causes of death .... when the clinical picture and sudden nature of collapse doesn't fit.

Of course there are other possibilities but these possibilities do not present with such sudden and unexpected deterioration..or the expected blood results.

Then you have the pattern of the babies not responding to resuscitation drugs and procedure.

Not one of these babies collapsed with anyone present...no parents...no staff ...only letby

The altering of records shown to be inaccurate

The manipulation messages sent to colleagues

Collapses occurring minutes after her "Dr friend" left the unit with a female Dr.

Collapses occurring when Dr friend was in clinic to get him to the unit.

Collapses occurring directly after her frustration...shown by messages

Yes but when you look into all that evidence closely, you see none of it stacks up.

Before so much of the transcript and evidence had come to light and been analysed after the trial, there were very credible people with statistical knowledge saying that she was really unlucky to have been on shift for so many of these cases.

But given what we now know, none of these people think there is anything improbable at all. The whole thing was one huge error of confirmation bias.

The jury weren’t told of the deaths of other babies who died during this period, babies who were in much better health, for instance.

The idea that there is a statistically significant pattern here is completely fake. Yet the entire case was constructed around this idea. The idea of her manipulation being one part of it. If you look into it, the prosecution tried to argue on one occasion that Lucy was being manipulative by texting to others that baby E had haemophilia and it was a complex case even though the baby wasn’t strictly under her care. They take her behaviour in texting friends and looking up the condition etc and try to paint it in some kind of sinister light. But it’s actually just a perfectly normal thing for a nurse to do.

Just like ‘I carry a lot of babies round in my head’ is a perfectly normal thing for a nurse who works day in day out with sick babies to do and think and say.

There’s tons of this stuff. And as evidence it’s all unfounded assertions and less than negligible.

 

[Rohmer]

Lucy is guilty and hopefully that verdict will remain forever.

Fair enough, but remember that all the accusations that those who think she’s not guilty faced - that it was cruel to the families - they’re also projections and you don’t get to escape responsibility for your own contributions. If Letby is innocent then it’s not inconceivable that other babies are at risk in struggling hospitals right now because lessons haven’t been learned about the inadequate care in this case.

 

[JosieJo]

Yes but when you look into all that evidence closely, you see none of it stacks up.

Before so much of the transcript and evidence had come to light and been analysed after the trial, there were very credible people with statistical knowledge saying that she was really unlucky to have been on shift for so many of these cases.

But given what we now know, none of these people think there is anything improbable at all. The whole thing was one huge error of confirmation bias.

The jury weren’t told of the deaths of other babies who died during this period, babies who were in much better health, for instance.

The idea that there is a statistically significant pattern here is completely fake. Yet the entire case was constructed around this idea. The idea of her manipulation being one part of it. If you look into it, the prosecution tried to argue on one occasion that Lucy was being manipulative by texting to others that baby E had haemophilia and it was a complex case even though the baby wasn’t strictly under her care. They take her behaviour in texting friends and looking up the condition etc and try to paint it in some kind of sinister light. But it’s actually just a perfectly normal thing for a nurse to do.

Just like ‘I carry a lot of babies round in my head’ is a perfectly normal thing for a nurse who works day in day out with sick babies to do and think and say.

There’s tons of this stuff. And as evidence it’s all unfounded assertions and less than negligible.

Personally I disagree

 

[May72031]

The jury weren’t told of the deaths of other babies who died during this period, babies who were in much better health, for instance.

What deaths are you referring to?

The idea that there is a statistically significant pattern here is completely fake. Yet the entire case was constructed around this idea.

No, it wasn't.