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]

That's fine, the switch never flicked for you, but thats you, and what you think and feel isn't the be all and end all, outside your own head. That's probably more to do with your own way of thinking than anything else.

Personally I don't understand how anyone could get on the whole innocent thing, when you consider the arguments being put forward and where they are coming from. I'm quite open minded and I like to see both sides. But there's so many holes in the arguements for her innocence. None of it makes coherent sense. It's so easy to pull it all apart, every aspect of it.
Even the stuff coming from professionals and apparent experts. It's so easy to scrutinize and doesn't stack up whatsoever.

the prosecutions case and verdict is imo still the only viable explanation for the events as they happened over time. its also interesting to note that in terms of viable counter theory as to what exactly happened I have literally only ever seen piecemeal attempts to explain. There has been no particularly impactful dismantling of the layered case as made by the prosecution as of yet. the only one viable attempt was Dr Lee and co and I AM NOT expecting that to come to anything tbh. i think we would have heard by now.

 

[Baileyboo]

the prosecutions case and verdict is imo still the only viable explanation for the events as they happened over time. its also interesting to note that in terms of viable counter theory as to what exactly happened I have literally only ever seen piecemeal attempts to explain. There has been no particularly impactful dismantling of the layered case as made by the prosecution as of yet. the only one viable attempt was Dr Lee and co and I AM NOT expecting that to come to anything tbh. i think we would have heard by now.

Dr Shoo Lee's theories fall down when they are cross referenced with the evidence and researched. The summary released to the public is quite shocking in terms of errors and misleading remarks. It strange because you think he would be worried about his reputation as a doctor being damaged.

 

[WaneLyrical]

the prosecutions case and verdict is imo still the only viable explanation for the events as they happened over time. its also interesting to note that in terms of viable counter theory as to what exactly happened I have literally only ever seen piecemeal attempts to explain. There has been no particularly impactful dismantling of the layered case as made by the prosecution as of yet. the only one viable attempt was Dr Lee and co and I AM NOT expecting that to come to anything tbh. i think we would have heard by now.

There’s been plenty of dismantling, of the entire case. And if the entire evidence and transcripts were available there would be even more.

I’m still waiting for any sort of evidence of air embolism that isn’t completely reliant on a person simply being in the vicinity, because I feel like I’ve been spun a yarn.

Shoo Lee aside, the “rash” was different across all babies. We were led to believe this unusual rash appeared, moved around and changed colour, and disappeared as soon as the embolism had dissipated.

But that’s not the reality is it? Everyone’s rash was different, different colours, different locations, different duration, different onset period. Some happened when babies were bleeding internally. Even Mother A/B said the rash on Baby B was still visible, just less prominent, the following day. She took a photograph of it. She also said nobody in the hospital was interested in it after 5 minutes.

So why could the rash still be seen a day later? I thought this rash was the physical manifestation of the gas exchange happening in the veins.

How are these things so easily waved away by those who believe in her guilt?

 

[marynnu]

We were led to believe this unusual rash appeared, moved around and changed colour,

'Led to believe' by people who saw it, I think you'll find.

 

[WaneLyrical]

'Led to believe' by people who saw it, I think you'll find.

Good job omitting the last part of the sentence “and disappeared as soon as..” which is clearly the relevant part

 

[Charlot123]

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

“On call” meaning the same as “shift”

 

[Sweeper2000]

There’s been plenty of dismantling, of the entire case. And if the entire evidence and transcripts were available there would be even more.

I’m still waiting for any sort of evidence of air embolism that isn’t completely reliant on a person simply being in the vicinity, because I feel like I’ve been spun a yarn.

Shoo Lee aside, the “rash” was different across all babies. We were led to believe this unusual rash appeared, moved around and changed colour, and disappeared as soon as the embolism had dissipated.

But that’s not the reality is it? Everyone’s rash was different, different colours, different locations, different duration, different onset period. Some happened when babies were bleeding internally. Even Mother A/B said the rash on Baby B was still visible, just less prominent, the following day. She took a photograph of it. She also said nobody in the hospital was interested in it after 5 minutes.

So why could the rash still be seen a day later? I thought this rash was the physical manifestation of the gas exchange happening in the veins.

How are these things so easily waved away by those who believe in her guilt?

i think your probably the one member of the jury for which the evidence didnt quite meet the bar. its still the vast majority though. there is always one

 

[WaneLyrical]

i think your probably the one member of the jury for which the evidence didnt quite meet the bar. its still the vast majority though. there is always one

Which parts of the evidence satisfy you that any of these babies had air embolisms?

 

[marynnu]

“On call” meaning the same as “shift”

It's not the same, but OK.

 

[marynnu]

Good job omitting the last part of the sentence “and disappeared as soon as..” which is clearly the relevant part

My point is that it was given as evidence by several experienced members of staff. Are you saying they were lying?

 

[Sweeper2000]

Which parts of the evidence satisfy you that any of these babies had air embolisms?

mostly the several high level pro's stating its a likely answer. maybe as much the lack of a clear pathway for the deteriorations and deaths which is highly unusual especially in the many cases we heard of at the trial, it was the clusterings that made me think it was human action orientated as well but thats applicable across the board of cases. Not so much the rashes. what is it that you doubt that it was AE?

 

[WaneLyrical]

My point is that it was given as evidence by several experienced members of staff. Are you saying they were lying?

No I’m saying somebody else who also saw this rash, the parent, said it was still visible the following day, did you even read what I posted?

 

[WaneLyrical]

mostly the several high level pro's stating its a likely answer. maybe as much the lack of a clear pathway for the deteriorations and deaths which is highly unusual especially in the many cases we heard of at the trial, it was the clusterings that made me think it was human action orientated as well but thats applicable across the board of cases. Not so much the rashes. what is it that you doubt that it was AE?

My concern is that AE has just been used as a catch all cause of death with nothing to support it and no way to disprove it. Theoretically you can take any death and simply say it was AE if Letby happened to be there (and she was there for most of not all of the deaths that occurred that year)

 

[Sweeper2000]

not quite s

My concern is that AE has just been used as a catch all cause of death with nothing to support it and no way to disprove it. Theoretically you can take any death and simply say it was AE if Letby happened to be there (and she was there for most of not all of the deaths that occurred that year)

not sure if what you are saying is that the other deaths not attributed to letby were also caused by the same thing that caused the deaths that were? plenty there to support AE as a cause of death namely the otherwise unexplained collapses, deteriorations and deaths that had no obvious medical cause. no you couldnt take any death either as the med notes would show reasons for it ie infection, nec etc otherwise if without med explanation it is most likely human action. also if it was a catch all then the further medical investigations would show something although yes we did not have a proper exhaustive autopsy to really clarify things. im not sure how AE could be disproven ifit was the cause of death either? if it wasnt the med notes would show something else was the reason thus disproving it.

 

[WaneLyrical]

not quite s

not sure if what you are saying is that the other deaths not attributed to letby were also caused by the same thing that caused the deaths that were? plenty there to support AE as a cause of death namely the otherwise unexplained collapses, deteriorations and deaths that had no obvious medical cause. no you couldnt take any death either as the med notes would show reasons for it ie infection, nec etc otherwise if without med explanation it is most likely human action. also if it was a catch all then the further medical investigations would show something although yes we did not have a proper exhaustive autopsy to really clarify things. im not sure how AE could be disproven ifit was the cause of death either? if it wasnt the med notes would show something else was the reason thus disproving it.

How do you know the other deaths listed simply as “prematurity” didn’t also include desaturations and eventual collapse? Why don’t they list the exact mechanism of death? How did they rule out air embolism in those deaths? Or is it just Letby wasn’t spotted in the room at the time and they didn’t make the final cut? What happened to the suspicious events Evens spotted that magically became not suspicious when it became known Letby wasn’t there?

Something being unexpected or unexplained does not automatically mean it was malicious. We see the same junior doctors appearing again and again, keeping to the paediatric ward because they were completely out of their depths in an NNU that was taking higher needs babies than it had capacity or resource for. I think it’s very convenient that some of these deaths can be blamed on a serial killer nurse, when the reality is the hospital would have quite rightly been held liable for suboptimal care. We can see the hospital’s damage control in action when we read the testimony of the parents.

The evidence has been cherry picked to make it look the way it does. Just like the confession note was cherry picked from hundreds of other notes that contained many protestations of innocence, or the Facebook searches were cherry picked from thousands of other Facebook searches that included patient families, or shift notes cherry picked from hundreds of other shift notes.

If the prosecution’s case was any way as strong as some seem to suggest, there wouldn’t still be such glaring holes and questions around the investigation.

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

How do you know the other deaths listed simply as “prematurity” didn’t also include desaturations and eventual collapse? Why don’t they list the exact mechanism of death? How did they rule out air embolism in those deaths? Or is it just Letby wasn’t spotted in the room at the time and they didn’t make the final cut? What happened to the suspicious events Evens spotted that magically became not suspicious when it became known Letby wasn’t there?

Something being unexpected or unexplained does not automatically mean it was malicious. We see the same junior doctors appearing again and again, keeping to the paediatric ward because they were completely out of their depths in an NNU that was taking higher needs babies than it had capacity or resource for. I think it’s very convenient that some of these deaths can be blamed on a serial killer nurse, when the reality is the hospital would have quite rightly been held liable for suboptimal care. We can see the hospital’s damage control in action when we read the testimony of the parents.

Death due to prematurity looks a certain way. Likewise due to HIE or congenital defects. Expected deaths look different than the events described in the trial.

The hospital is still responsible for the serial killer nurse and IMO that looks way worse than garden variety incompetence.

 

[JosieJo]

Only from memory but was the rash not described as "moving" ?
Also rashes do not suddenly appear at a point of collapse...
Then we have experienced Dr's saying in some cases they had never seen a rash like it.

But the most important...we know the court already considered the "rash" and appeal wasn't granted because it wasn't the only evidence they relied upon for air embolism

 

[Sweeper2000]

How do you know the other deaths listed simply as “prematurity” didn’t also include desaturations and eventual collapse? Why don’t they list the exact mechanism of death? How did they rule out air embolism in those deaths? Or is it just Letby wasn’t spotted in the room at the time and they didn’t make the final cut? What happened to the suspicious events Evens spotted that magically became not suspicious when it became known Letby wasn’t there?

Something being unexpected or unexplained does not automatically mean it was malicious. We see the same junior doctors appearing again and again, keeping to the paediatric ward because they were completely out of their depths in an NNU that was taking higher needs babies than it had capacity or resource for. I think it’s very convenient that some of these deaths can be blamed on a serial killer nurse, when the reality is the hospital would have quite rightly been held liable for suboptimal care. We can see the hospital’s damage control in action when we read the testimony of the parents.

The evidence has been cherry picked to make it look the way it does. Just like the confession note was cherry picked from hundreds of other notes that contained many protestations of innocence, or the Facebook searches were cherry picked from thousands of other Facebook searches that included patient families, or shift notes cherry picked from hundreds of other shift notes.

If the prosecution’s case was any way as strong as some seem to suggest, there wouldn’t still be such glaring holes and questions around the investigation.

think it was the very nature of the desats and collapses that was standout as well, in the trial they were described as sudden and unexplained. letby being present was not a factor in dr evans and others diagnosing the problems the way they did. your right when you say something unexpected or unexplained is not suspicious but when it happens over and over again it is imo and that was one of the reasons why i think the jury got it right. i also think the investigations would have uncovered anything that pointed to junior doctors being responsible for whatever reason and we would have heard of it. i also think the courts doctors would have been able to identify if the babies were not treated correctly especially Dr Bohin. from my perspective allot of the stuff like the confession note, fb searches and shift notes were almost unneccesary to conclude that things had been unusual to the extreme in regards to why the babies went the way they did. they filled in some details and were additional to the docs diagnoses.

i really viewed the evidence like this like the babies were a trail and to follow the trail you have to find out whether or not you think something was wrong with what happened to them. if yes follow the trail and see where it leads and it led to lucy letby.

 

[JosieJo]

Dr Choc in court again

BBC News - Lucy Letby colleague wins legal case over hospital visits probe - BBC News

Lucy Letby colleague wins legal case over hospital visits probe

The medic wins a High Court case over a NHS trust investigation into what he knew about the nurse.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Sweeper2000]

Dr Choc in court again

BBC News - Lucy Letby colleague wins legal case over hospital visits probe - BBC News

Lucy Letby colleague wins legal case over hospital visits probe

The medic wins a High Court case over a NHS trust investigation into what he knew about the nurse.

www.bbc.co.uk

any chance you could tell us what the problems there are? read the article understand the basics of it but dont see any reason as to why doc choc would be so insistent on the chief investigating stuff as opposed to the other. hes not just being difficult i assume or going for the money.