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

[WaneLyrical]

Thanks for expaining.

There’s no doubt she will need to waive privilege at some point, certainly at the court of appeal, but aren’t there other options for the CCRC in the meantime, limited waivers? Because once it’s gone, it’s gone, and there’s no guarantee of getting to the court of appeal, you can still be committed to disclosing all relevant confidential information that the CCRC requires.

McDonald is saying he doesn’t know and won’t speculate on the reasons no defence expert was called, surely that’s him telling us he has avoided knowing, not that Letby’s prevented him knowing. He wouldn’t tell the answer to the random journalist anyway.

If the CCRC was considering the reasons why no expert was called, would it seek that information from Myers directly, or from McDonald?

 

[May72031]

You accuse them of having a 'hero mentality, blah blah blah.'

Yeah - that's a rather strange accusation, consideration the same people will often criticise the doctors for not doing enough. Which is it?

 

[Anxala]

Another thing I've been meaning to mention; many moons ago, during the trial, I think, a report about the investigation of her from the hospital was released. It didn't mention her by name but it said something along the lines of ...the nurse under investigation was a single mother... which we know (?) that LL isn't. Did we ever get a conclusion as to why that mistake occurred?

And, yes, I can see exactly where the conspiraloons will go with this so profuse apologies in advance to the rational minded among us!

My conclusion at the time was that some predictive txt thing kicked in when whoever was typing up that report. And that it wasn't spotted and edited at the time, and what should have read as 'a single person' (as in not married or co-habiting) became predictive txt 'single mother'.

And I base my conclusion on the fact that if she were a single mother, with a child and with responsibilites for a child, we would more than know about it by now.

The only single mother she was was single mother to her cats.

 

[Sweeper2000]

didnt we all agree the only reason mr myers didnt call ay experts was because the ones he had available more or less agreed with the prosecution? remember mr hall the def expert said he disputed the picture painted of the health of the babies but i do not recall any challenge at all on the prosecutions statements as to the c o d. for what its worth here is an article by the guardian from himself.

Lucy Letby: doctor criticises judge’s opening remarks at inquiry

Dr Michael Hall writes to inquiry saying he does not believe nurse received fair trial

www.theguardian.com

maybe there is info there that with some speculation could be revealing.

also not sure if it was mr myers decision or LL's.

ETA.

"Despite not being called up in court, Dr Hall's advice was drawn upon by Letby's defence team and he believes it was a mistake he wasn't asked to stand. However, solicitor Mark Solon who runs Bond Solon Training - a firm training expert witnesses how to work in the legal system - claimed this may have been to avoid the risk of confusing the jury, or that simply they felt they had already sufficiently made their case."

Lucy Letby defence doc says he's 'troubled' by not being called to give evidence

Neonatal expert Dr Michael Hall believes he should have been called to give evidence as an expert witness in the Lucy Letby trial, saying his expertise could have even changed the outcome

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[Sillybilly]

Hey folks,

There's a whole lot of opinion being stated as fact in this discussion, with no links to support or even a little "IMO". Providing a link is a Websleuths requirement.

Excerpt from The Rules: Etiquette & Information

LINKS and REFERENCING OUTSIDE SOURCES

Websleuths is fact based. Rumors and conspiracy theories are not allowed. Do not link to them and do not mention them.

Information stated as fact must be supported by a link to a mainstream media or law enforcement source (or other WS approved source) to substantiate the fact, otherwise the post will be removed, along with all responses to it. If the information is only your opinion, please make that clear in your post so that opinions do not become rumors attributed to Websleuths as the source.

[...]

Also, please do some homework about legal matters and provide links to support what you claim. By the same token, if a member wishes to refute what someone else has claimed, find a link to support your position. This way members are going around in circles with "no she doesn't" "yes she does" "no she doesn't" ... , which is neither productive or legally educational.

 

[WaneLyrical]

didnt we all agree the only reason mr myers didnt call ay experts was because the ones he had available more or less agreed with the prosecution? remember mr hall the def expert said he disputed the picture painted of the health of the babies but i do not recall any challenge at all on the prosecutions statements as to the c o d. for what its worth here is an article by the guardian from himself.

Lucy Letby: doctor criticises judge’s opening remarks at inquiry

Dr Michael Hall writes to inquiry saying he does not believe nurse received fair trial

www.theguardian.com

maybe there is info there that with some speculation could be revealing.

also not sure if it was mr myers decision or LL's.

ETA.

"Despite not being called up in court, Dr Hall's advice was drawn upon by Letby's defence team and he believes it was a mistake he wasn't asked to stand. However, solicitor Mark Solon who runs Bond Solon Training - a firm training expert witnesses how to work in the legal system - claimed this may have been to avoid the risk of confusing the jury, or that simply they felt they had already sufficiently made their case."

Lucy Letby defence doc says he's 'troubled' by not being called to give evidence

Neonatal expert Dr Michael Hall believes he should have been called to give evidence as an expert witness in the Lucy Letby trial, saying his expertise could have even changed the outcome

www.mirror.co.uk

I often wonder if a big part of the reason they didn’t call an expert was because it would have essentially started a whole rehash of the evidence starting at Baby A, possibly with other experts being recalled. The trial had already overrun by several months, the judge kept trying to manage jury expectations and set an expected end date, and the trial simply would have been at risk of collapsing.

The judge should have allowed the defence expert to be called at the end of each prosecution case for each baby, instead of waiting until the end, and after many months had passed since the original evidence. I think this is why Myers cross-examined in the way he did, suggesting babies were not as stable etc, essentially using Hall’s report to guide him.

Furthermore, what could a defence expert have reasonably contributed to the case. Even if they successfully argued the babies were not stable as asserted, any defence expert would always have to accept the possibility of air embolism, since it’s not possible to disprove.

JMO

 

[WaneLyrical]

My conclusion at the time was that some predictive txt thing kicked in when whoever was typing up that report. And that it wasn't spotted and edited at the time, and what should have read as 'a single person' (as in not married or co-habiting) became predictive txt 'single mother'.

And I base my conclusion on the fact that if she were a single mother, with a child and with responsibilites for a child, we would more than know about it by now.

The only single mother she was was single mother to her cats.

I’m not sure if it’s the same document, or a different one, but the initial meeting between Ian Harvey and the police listed Letby as a single parent. The police added an action point in the minutes to identify the child and flag for safeguarding.

The addition of this specific action point makes me think this wasn’t a typo, and that Harvey at least believed her to be a single parent.

 

[Tortoise]

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.

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.

 

[Anxala]

I’m not sure if it’s the same document, or a different one, but the initial meeting between Ian Harvey and the police listed Letby as a single parent. The police added an action point in the minutes to identify the child and flag for safeguarding.

The addition of this specific action point makes me think this wasn’t a typo, and that Harvey at least believed her to be a single parent.

Interesting. I just find it very hard to believe that LL has a child. If you describe someone as a single parent, it usually implies someone who at least part cares for a child/has regular involvement with that child, and there's absolutely zero evidence to suggest that was the case.

But jmo.

 

[WaneLyrical]

Interesting. I just find it very hard to believe that LL has a child. If you describe someone as a single parent, it usually implies someone who at least part cares for a child/has regular involvement with that child, and there's absolutely zero evidence to suggest that was the case.

But jmo.

Totally agree, there’s zero evidence pointing to her having a child. We’ve even seen inside her home, there was no child living there.

All I’m taking from it is the possibility that Harvey knew so little about things that he thought the nurse concerned was a single parent. The bigger thing for me in that police document is she was also listed as having worked at COCH full time for 8 years, which was nowhere close to true, she’d only just started uni 8 years prior. So I wonder whether there was also some underlying belief ‘at the top’ that Letby was more experienced than she actually was.

 

[katydid23]

Totally agree, there’s zero evidence pointing to her having a child. We’ve even seen inside her home, there was no child living there.

All I’m taking from it is the possibility that Harvey knew so little about things that he thought the nurse concerned was a single parent. The bigger thing for me in that police document is she was also listed as having worked at COCH full time for 8 years, which was nowhere close to true, she’d only just started uni 8 years prior. So I wonder whether there was also some underlying belief ‘at the top’ that Letby was more experienced than she actually was.

Right, but that was the 'initial meeting' when that document was filled out. I'm sure over the next several years, multiple interviews with Lucy and hundreds of people, they clarified that, no problem.

Whatever information is listed on the initial document in a 6 year investigation is going to be clarified and updated multiple times.

 

[WaneLyrical]

Right, but that was the 'initial meeting' when that document was filled out. I'm sure over the next several years, multiple interviews with Lucy and hundreds of people, they clarified that, no problem.

Whatever information is listed on the initial document in a 6 year investigation is going to be clarified and updated multiple times.

Of course, I expect it would have been picked up and clarified almost immediately. The point I was making is it gives an insight into what the upper echelons believed about Letby at the point of the referral to police.

 

[katydid23]

Of course, I expect it would have been picked up and clarified almost immediately. The point I was making is it gives an insight into what the upper echelons believed about Letby at the point of the referral to police.

Th Upper echelons are always out of touch. That's a symptom of the bigger issues here.

 

[belinda15]

Interesting. I just find it very hard to believe that LL has a child. If you describe someone as a single parent, it usually implies someone who at least part cares for a child/has regular involvement with that child, and there's absolutely zero evidence to suggest that was the case.

But jmo.

Just a simple mistake, I think.

 

[Ruthbullock]

I don't get that at all, tbh. How can a barrister represent someone who isn't telling them the full story? Surely there's some ethical rule against that? I mean it's not just that the client is keeping something to themselves that the barrister can't know about, she's deliberately telling her counsel that he can't have access to potentially very important material. It's completely bizarre to me.

So my understanding is MM doesn’t need her to waive privilege, he won’t be the person representing her at trial. He has just taken the “new information” to the CCRC. He originally said LL hadn’t waived privilege a long time ago in an interview with Moritz. At this point we have no idea whether she has or not. You are correct in that some of her original legal team are still involved (although not all)- and this is one of the reasons cited that she hasn’t waived privilege- because she doesn’t need to, her original team are still involved and aware of all the information. If MM represents her at the COA (which he has said he would, but not in any actual retrial), she may need to waive privilege so that he can make comparisons between old and new information, but for the CCRC she doesn’t need to (although she may well have already done so, but also if some member of her old legal team are still involved wouldn’t need to). The legal gazette has an article that I shared (deleted as an opinion piece)- but this was an article they chose to print stating that any lawyer would not need her to waive privilege at this point- and to me that is logical. It’s a nonsense conversation really, unless you believe she would be successful either through the CCRC or the COA and then the CCRC/COA announce she hasn’t waived privilege so we can go no further with this and shut it all down. It would be dramatic,-but realistic,I doubt it.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Anyone care to shed some light on why the doctors forgot to mention this?

“Davies said: “I don’t know why the hospital doctors didn’t include the detail regarding the needle.

“I believe it could have made a difference to the post-mortem if it was highlighted. An inquest may well have been held, there may have been a finding that the baby died due to a medical procedure, and there may never have been a police investigation.”

“I reported that there were missing jigsaw pieces, that the deaths of the babies hadn’t been fully explained,” Davies says. “I said if the police went ahead with an investigation, they may find those missing pieces. But I did not say, or see any evidence, that any of the babies had been deliberately harmed.”

The case of Baby O became key to hardening the investigation into Letby. Cheshire police appointed Dr Dewi Evans, a retired paediatrician, as their medical expert. Evans has said the police showed him Baby O’s medical notes at his first meeting, and within 10 minutes, he saw the liver damage and said it must have been inflicted deliberately.“

It’s also slightly concerning that Evans used the same information (that missed the part about doctors using needles and inserting cannulas) to draw his conclusions. I realise some may say that they were busy, and feel the need to make excuses for their forgetfulness when writing up their notes for the coroner. Others may feel the need to point out it was shown at trial that it didn’t matter as it was nowhere near the liver. If it wasn’t important, why exclude it? If you believe there is someone deliberately harming babies on your unit, get your ducks in a row, don’t hide your own mistakes, allowing people to pick apart the information after a trial, due to things not being disclosed.

Former senior coroner’s officer says Lucy Letby has suffered miscarriage of justice

Stephanie Davies says crucial details about one of the babies could have made difference to police investigation

www.theguardian.com

 

[Ruthbullock]

“The case of Baby O became key to hardening the investigation into Letby. Cheshire police appointed Dr Dewi Evans, a retired paediatrician, as their medical expert. Evans has said the police showed him Baby O’s medical notes at his first meeting, and within 10 minutes, he saw the liver damage and said it must have been inflicted deliberately.““

I can completely see how if no doctor had recorded inserting a needle for a cannula on their notes that you would assume this was a secretive act by someone to cover up the act/crime. The issue is the person not disclosing it was not the person accused of the crime.

 

[Ruthbullock]

So Letby was removed from duty 7th July by management

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0010147_07.pdf

Dr J reported her finally to management on 24 june

“you became aware of O's death on 24 June and you deal with this at paragraph 392 of your statement and the Inquiry has heard evidence from both Karen Townsend and Karen Rees about this. Can you tell us now the conversation and the meeting you had with Karen Rees on 24 June
Jayaram: Now, it was on my list of things to discuss with her about our concerns about Letby…. we were not comfortable with Letby at this point continuing to work unsupervised on the unit.“

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Thirlwall-Inquiry-13-November-2024.pdf

How is that an excessive amount of time for management to process what he had reported?

 

[Ruthbullock]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Tortoise]

Anyone care to shed some light on why the doctors forgot to mention this?

“Davies said: “I don’t know why the hospital doctors didn’t include the detail regarding the needle.

“I believe it could have made a difference to the post-mortem if it was highlighted. An inquest may well have been held, there may have been a finding that the baby died due to a medical procedure, and there may never have been a police investigation.”

“I reported that there were missing jigsaw pieces, that the deaths of the babies hadn’t been fully explained,” Davies says. “I said if the police went ahead with an investigation, they may find those missing pieces. But I did not say, or see any evidence, that any of the babies had been deliberately harmed.”

The case of Baby O became key to hardening the investigation into Letby. Cheshire police appointed Dr Dewi Evans, a retired paediatrician, as their medical expert. Evans has said the police showed him Baby O’s medical notes at his first meeting, and within 10 minutes, he saw the liver damage and said it must have been inflicted deliberately.“

It’s also slightly concerning that Evans used the same information (that missed the part about doctors using needles and inserting cannulas) to draw his conclusions. I realise some may say that they were busy, and feel the need to make excuses for their forgetfulness when writing up their notes for the coroner. Others may feel the need to point out it was shown at trial that it didn’t matter as it was nowhere near the liver. If it wasn’t important, why exclude it? If you believe there is someone deliberately harming babies on your unit, get your ducks in a row, don’t hide your own mistakes, allowing people to pick apart the information after a trial, due to things not being disclosed.

Former senior coroner’s officer says Lucy Letby has suffered miscarriage of justice

Stephanie Davies says crucial details about one of the babies could have made difference to police investigation

www.theguardian.com

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.