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

[Charlot123]

Team Letby is chock full of conspiracy cranks and weird people. A lot of them insist other convicted killers are innocent, based on no reason whatsoever. You also see a lot of "anti-vax" anger from them.

Would you mind providing some statistics or articles from verified your sources to confirm statements like, “you also see a lot of “anti-vax” anger from them”, please?

 

[joltz]

Would you mind providing some statistics or articles from verified your sources to confirm statements like, “you also see a lot of “anti-vax” anger from them”, please?

5 minutes looking at x/twitter is enough to know.

 

[joltz]

They seem to have determined it was reasonable for her to have held that belief, so what’s your point?

Beliefs aren't facts.

 

[WaneLyrical]

Beliefs aren't facts.

It wasn’t presented as a fact, you just misconstrued it.

 

[joltz]

It wasn’t presented as a fact, you just misconstrued it.

No, I didn't actually. I simply made a statement. I don't care for this woman's beliefs. Anyone can have an opinion or belief.

The post made reference to another case "that appeared to be a MOJ with the Cheshire police"

There was no mention that it was simply this woman's belief.

So no, it didn't appear to be a MOJ, except in this woman's head.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Regarding the coroner...personally I feel they are trying to cover their own ...they have access to ALL the medical records....just because the needle insertion wasn't mentioned on the referral form? Why would it ? They didn't feel it was relevant....not every needle , test , drip etc etc is put on the report to the coroner...it's up to the coroner to go through the medical notes.

Plus the important thing is ...it was presented at trial and cross examined already

So first it’s a management cover up, now it’s the coroner not doing a good enough job. Your evidence to support this is lacking any effort to substantiate your claims from the trial, that has since had a lot of things questioned through an inquiry (that never made any attempt to exonerate her, so these things have come out regardless).

“DE LA POER: Just help us to understand a little bit more about your reasoning there about why … you didn't think it was appropriate that the Coroner be told at the time of notification of O [Child O] and P that there were suspicions?
GIBBS: I suppose I wasn't sure if my colleague had conveyed those suspicions”

“DE LA POER: Following the death of [Child O], did you have any discussions with those who were present about the suspicions that had previously been in your mind?
GIBBS: Immediately after [Child O]'s death, no, I don't think I did. Again, I don't think I did. There is nothing recorded in the notes that I know of in O or Brother P “

“LANGDALE: If we go to message on page 27, 1028, 6 July, you say: "You need to keep this to yourself. The meeting this afternoon looked at everything with [Child O] and P [Child P] from birth onwards, reviewed everything, the room, beds medical views and actions. We looked at all documentation, medicine. If you have any doubt about how good you are at your job stop now, documentation was perfect.”

At least the doctors were patting themselves on the back for their note keeping behind the scenes- so it probably did look good at trial, it doesn’t mean the coroner was made aware of any suspicions like they should have been in order to investigate the death properly.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Baby 15​

The court initially heard that the boy, a triplet, had suffered blunt trauma to the abdomen, causing purpling of the skin and bleeding on the liver. Air was allegedly injected into the nasogastric tube causing the intestines to swell. Later, the accusation was changed to deliberate injection of air into the boy’s bloodstream.

The expert panel said the boy had died from a subcapsular liver haematoma, or bleeding beneath the outer layer of the liver, caused by traumatic delivery. This resulted in haemorrhage into the surrounding abdomen and profound shock. This was not recognised before the child died.

In summarising their findings, the panel flagged more than a dozen problems that were likely to have contributed to the babies’ deaths. These ranged from failures in diagnosing disease, poor skills in basic medical procedures such as inserting chest tubes, poor management of common neonatal conditions like low blood sugar and a disregard for warnings about infections.


LANGDALE: [Child O]. At paragraph 23, you tell us you were working nights. Tell us of your involvement with [Child O] and when you learned of [Child O]'s death and how you felt about that?
MAYBERRY: So for [Child O] I was on the night of 22 June 2016 and I was working as a middle grade doctor, so on the Registrar rota. "At some point in the night, I don't remember the exact time, Sophie Ellis, who was the nurse looking after [Child O], requested a review of [Child O]'s abdomen because it was mildly distended. Although she was not worried about him, she felt he looked slightly uncomfortable. When examining [Child O] I could feel that his abdomen was soft although it was slightly distended, he wasn't uncomfortable. This would be a common finding in a child on high flow nasal cannula oxygen and I wasn't particularly concerned about him.

LANGDALE: You say at paragraph 49: "There was a lot of discussion amongst the doctors at handover following [Child O]'s death as there were still two siblings who were alive and we wanted to ensure that we considered how best to manage them. This was a medically unexplained event but there were no concerns about mismanagement or suspicions that someone was to blame as far as I was aware." How can you say there were no concerns about mismanagement or suspicions when no one knew how the death had arisen? Until that has been investigated, you can't assert there were no concerns, can you?
DrU: I think what I'm meaning in that paragraph is that there was no event attributable to that -- that decline. It wasn't that a tube had been displaced or pushed too far, it wasn't that an incorrect medication had been administered as far as recorded on the prescription chart or recorded in the notes. I'm not sure that any of us would have considered a deliberate act.


Even the other doctors were reliant on previous doctors notes to make their next medical decisions- I have questions about the validity of all the note keeping and its impact- aka the snowball effect

 

[marynnu]

So first it’s a management cover up, now it’s the coroner not doing a good enough job. Your evidence to support this is lacking any effort to substantiate your claims from the trial, that has since had a lot of things questioned through an inquiry (that never made any attempt to exonerate her, so these things have come out regardless).

“DE LA POER: Just help us to understand a little bit more about your reasoning there about why … you didn't think it was appropriate that the Coroner be told at the time of notification of O [Child O] and P that there were suspicions?
GIBBS: I suppose I wasn't sure if my colleague had conveyed those suspicions”

“DE LA POER: Following the death of [Child O], did you have any discussions with those who were present about the suspicions that had previously been in your mind?
GIBBS: Immediately after [Child O]'s death, no, I don't think I did. Again, I don't think I did. There is nothing recorded in the notes that I know of in O or Brother P “

“LANGDALE: If we go to message on page 27, 1028, 6 July, you say: "You need to keep this to yourself. The meeting this afternoon looked at everything with [Child O] and P [Child P] from birth onwards, reviewed everything, the room, beds medical views and actions. We looked at all documentation, medicine. If you have any doubt about how good you are at your job stop now, documentation was perfect.”

At least the doctors were patting themselves on the back for their note keeping behind the scenes- so it probably did look good at trial, it doesn’t mean the coroner was made aware of any suspicions like they should have been in order to investigate the death properly.

Your post implies that the 'you need to keep this to yourself...' message was part of the consultant discussion. It was not. It was a message from Dr. A/U to Letby. Do you realise that?

 

[JosieJo]

So first it’s a management cover up, now it’s the coroner not doing a good enough job. Your evidence to support this is lacking any effort to substantiate your claims from the trial, that has since had a lot of things questioned through an inquiry (that never made any attempt to exonerate her, so these things have come out regardless).

“DE LA POER: Just help us to understand a little bit more about your reasoning there about why … you didn't think it was appropriate that the Coroner be told at the time of notification of O [Child O] and P that there were suspicions?
GIBBS: I suppose I wasn't sure if my colleague had conveyed those suspicions”

“DE LA POER: Following the death of [Child O], did you have any discussions with those who were present about the suspicions that had previously been in your mind?
GIBBS: Immediately after [Child O]'s death, no, I don't think I did. Again, I don't think I did. There is nothing recorded in the notes that I know of in O or Brother P “

“LANGDALE: If we go to message on page 27, 1028, 6 July, you say: "You need to keep this to yourself. The meeting this afternoon looked at everything with [Child O] and P [Child P] from birth onwards, reviewed everything, the room, beds medical views and actions. We looked at all documentation, medicine. If you have any doubt about how good you are at your job stop now, documentation was perfect.”

At least the doctors were patting themselves on the back for their note keeping behind the scenes- so it probably did look good at trial, it doesn’t mean the coroner was made aware of any suspicions like they should have been in order to investigate the death properly.

Ruth ..."So first it’s a management cover up, now it’s the coroner not doing a good enough job. Your evidence to support this is lacking any effort to substantiate your claims from the trial,"

I'm not sure what you mean by all this to be honest...my main point was ..and is correct ...coroner has access to all medical records and not every detail is put to the coroner on referral. My point was in relation to the needle insertion

Now then ...I understand some people are very interested in examining every minute detail of the enquiry and "trying" to compare it to evidence given at the trial ...personally I am not.

My interest is crime and the process of justice. If her team find anything that leads to a successful appeal I again will be very interested in the evidence

I hope the enquiry finds the faults in the system and tries to rectify these in the future. But personally I have no interest in comparing every detail myself.

I could be wrong but are there not two separate threads for the conviction and the enquiry?

 

[JosieJo]

So first it’s a management cover up, now it’s the coroner not doing a good enough job. Your evidence to support this is lacking any effort to substantiate your claims from the trial, that has since had a lot of things questioned through an inquiry (that never made any attempt to exonerate her, so these things have come out regardless).

“DE LA POER: Just help us to understand a little bit more about your reasoning there about why … you didn't think it was appropriate that the Coroner be told at the time of notification of O [Child O] and P that there were suspicions?
GIBBS: I suppose I wasn't sure if my colleague had conveyed those suspicions”

“DE LA POER: Following the death of [Child O], did you have any discussions with those who were present about the suspicions that had previously been in your mind?
GIBBS: Immediately after [Child O]'s death, no, I don't think I did. Again, I don't think I did. There is nothing recorded in the notes that I know of in O or Brother P “

“LANGDALE: If we go to message on page 27, 1028, 6 July, you say: "You need to keep this to yourself. The meeting this afternoon looked at everything with [Child O] and P [Child P] from birth onwards, reviewed everything, the room, beds medical views and actions. We looked at all documentation, medicine. If you have any doubt about how good you are at your job stop now, documentation was perfect.”

At least the doctors were patting themselves on the back for their note keeping behind the scenes- so it probably did look good at trial, it doesn’t mean the coroner was made aware of any suspicions like they should have been in order to investigate the death properly.

Surely the keep it to yourself comment was between letby and Dr A ?...ie Dr A patting letby on the back ?

 

[Parker Knoll]

Exactly …. He thought he was actually in with a chance with the world’s unluckiest nurse.
That’s aged well.

 

[JosieJo]

Baby 15​

The court initially heard that the boy, a triplet, had suffered blunt trauma to the abdomen, causing purpling of the skin and bleeding on the liver. Air was allegedly injected into the nasogastric tube causing the intestines to swell. Later, the accusation was changed to deliberate injection of air into the boy’s bloodstream.

The expert panel said the boy had died from a subcapsular liver haematoma, or bleeding beneath the outer layer of the liver, caused by traumatic delivery. This resulted in haemorrhage into the surrounding abdomen and profound shock. This was not recognised before the child died.

In summarising their findings, the panel flagged more than a dozen problems that were likely to have contributed to the babies’ deaths. These ranged from failures in diagnosing disease, poor skills in basic medical procedures such as inserting chest tubes, poor management of common neonatal conditions like low blood sugar and a disregard for warnings about infections.


LANGDALE: [Child O]. At paragraph 23, you tell us you were working nights. Tell us of your involvement with [Child O] and when you learned of [Child O]'s death and how you felt about that?
MAYBERRY: So for [Child O] I was on the night of 22 June 2016 and I was working as a middle grade doctor, so on the Registrar rota. "At some point in the night, I don't remember the exact time, Sophie Ellis, who was the nurse looking after [Child O], requested a review of [Child O]'s abdomen because it was mildly distended. Although she was not worried about him, she felt he looked slightly uncomfortable. When examining [Child O] I could feel that his abdomen was soft although it was slightly distended, he wasn't uncomfortable. This would be a common finding in a child on high flow nasal cannula oxygen and I wasn't particularly concerned about him.

LANGDALE: You say at paragraph 49: "There was a lot of discussion amongst the doctors at handover following [Child O]'s death as there were still two siblings who were alive and we wanted to ensure that we considered how best to manage them. This was a medically unexplained event but there were no concerns about mismanagement or suspicions that someone was to blame as far as I was aware." How can you say there were no concerns about mismanagement or suspicions when no one knew how the death had arisen? Until that has been investigated, you can't assert there were no concerns, can you?
DrU: I think what I'm meaning in that paragraph is that there was no event attributable to that -- that decline. It wasn't that a tube had been displaced or pushed too far, it wasn't that an incorrect medication had been administered as far as recorded on the prescription chart or recorded in the notes. I'm not sure that any of us would have considered a deliberate act.


Even the other doctors were reliant on previous doctors notes to make their next medical decisions- I have questions about the validity of all the note keeping and its impact- aka the snowball effect

"Even the other doctors were reliant on previous doctors notes to make their next medical decisions-"

I'm not sure if you see this as a fault? But this is standard practice..babies cannot have a single doctor sitting with them 24 hours a day ?

 

[marynnu]

Come on @Ruthbullock, you normally have plenty to say.

 

[Charlot123]

5 minutes looking at x/twitter is enough to know.

Oh, ok so X is the official verified source of information now. Any specific tweets to follow? Surely Dr. Jayaram would have something to tweet now, explaining the inconsistencies in his reports about baby K, right?

In the meantime, I am back to the independent international experts’ panel…

 

[joltz]

Oh, ok so X is the official verified source of information now. Any specific tweets to follow? Surely Dr. Jayaram would have something to tweet now, explaining the inconsistencies in his reports about baby K, right?

In the meantime, I am back to the independent international experts’ panel…

X is where the flat earthers spout misinformation and Lucy Letby fan fiction.

 

[Charlot123]

X is where the flat earthers spout misinformation and Lucy Letby fan fiction.

Well, I did look at "not my usual type of SM," X. A good article was linked to one account summarizing the reason why some of us follow this case. In fact, it has to do with the judicial procedure in this case.

As to flat earthers, they illustrate where the society might end up when people are too lazy to bring science or evidence into consideration. Criminalistics is science. If the whole case is based on homebred NICU sheet with "on call" vs "events", it is neither criminalistics nor science.

 

[marynnu]

Well, I did look at "not my usual type of SM," X. A good article was linked to one account summarizing the reason why some of us follow this case. In fact, it has to do with the judicial procedure in this case.

As to flat earthers, they illustrate where the society might end up when people are too lazy to bring science or evidence into consideration. Criminalistics is science. If the whole case is based on homebred NICU sheet with "on call" vs "events", it is neither criminalistics nor science.

i don't understand what you mean by 'on call' in this context?

 

[joltz]

Well, I did look at "not my usual type of SM," X. A good article was linked to one account summarizing the reason why some of us follow this case. In fact, it has to do with the judicial procedure in this case.

As to flat earthers, they illustrate where the society might end up when people are too lazy to bring science or evidence into consideration. Criminalistics is science. If the whole case is based on homebred NICU sheet with "on call" vs "events", it is neither criminalistics nor science.

Word salad.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Come on @Ruthbullock, you normally have plenty to say.

I have sadly almost given up on this forum as to the usual quality of conversation we have on web sleuths - as the saying goes “you can’t argue with stupid”. I don’t think any one person who is posting is stupid, but the posts lack any substance or even any information to discuss and contradict and are merely accusations of idiocy and assumptions that belittle other posters.

Over and over again people post and share something and people just shut others down, not with a reasoned argument, but with condescending remarks that have no content behind them, far more suited to social media pages.

The threads on this site usually involve a lot more discussion, debate and sharing of alternative viewpoints, and if you had no valid alternative opinion you were of the ability to just not respond, but thanks to a few- everyone has pretty much abandoned ship.

 

[Sweeper2000]

i did ask you for your strongest point that might mean lucy letby is not guilty, you never got back to me. i will stretch it further and say your strongest bit of info that points to the trial being faulty, the jury prejudiced, the hospital at fault or the docs not being honest? if you will please