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]

But, I assume, asked for the lists of the other staff (doctors and trainees) on call, went to the adjacent labor and delivery unit to compare the perinatal mortality there, tried to look at some factors that had changed. Looked at the shift sheets from other years. Explored, instead of looking for witches and killers on the unit.

RSBM

Yes. Exactly. This is my exact issue with this case. We don’t know what we don’t know.

But it’s looking increasingly like this investigation was botched from the very start.

We do know from thirlwall that the management attempted (somewhat) to do this, we have those charts showing the trends in acuity, intensive care hours etc etc, all showing for the period in question the unit was bursting at the seams.

We also know they identified two doctors who were associated with a large portion of the deaths, but not all.

We now know more about the true extent of the sewage problem, they were using pads to absorb the sewage in the ceiling, and raw sewage was splattered in close proximity to the incubators (with no cleaners around). I dread to think the pathogens these babies were continually exposed to, the build up on every surface and instrument. Is there anything more vulnerable than a premature baby?

Hospital wastewater is the mutant version of domestic wastewater, in fact it’s not allowed to go anywhere near domestic wastewater because it needs special treatment. We know many people testified to noticeably poor hygiene practices. We don’t know if pathologists were told the babies had been exposed in this way.

We know what the royal college report said, I don’t recall it mentioning the sewage but I could be wrong. We do know the hospital was selective in what it recorded, both on the sewage, and in general (“I wish I’d recorded the rash, I wish I’d recorded walking in on an attempted murder, all emails cease”). It would seem that things which might open the hospital up to potential liability are less likely to be recorded.

We don’t know what was going on next door in the maternity ward. We do know the doctors worked there, and we know the NNU nurses would go there during births. We do know it was also experiencing an unusually high number of deaths, and we do know it was also a high risk zone for infection given the sewage leaks.

We don’t know anything about the “other” next door, the paediatric unit. We do know the doctors’ time was taken up almost exclusively by it.

The list goes on and on and on.

I reckon you could manufacture a “Lucy Letby” in every hospital baby scandal up and down this country, by selecting a limited amount of information and presenting it in a certain way, then putting a twist on all innocent behaviour of the accused. Bonus points if you limit your liability to some of the more egregious deaths by pinning it on the Letby.

The plumber’s testimony should have been an absolute bombshell. Why bother spending many more months hashing out made-up medical evidence based on incomplete records for multiple babies, when you can simply show that not only was this filthy hospital placing children and mothers at a completely unacceptable level of risk, it was concealing it. Imagine that, a child like Baby C, weighing something like the equivalent of a 24 week gestation, trying to survive being exposed in that way. At COCH, sadly, the better you breathe the worse you get.

If anyone is charged with negligence manslaughter, it should be because of this, not because of ‘harbouring a murderer’.

Anyway, this is why I maintain an interest in this case. My mind can’t rest until some of the unanswered questions are answered. Right now I’m not convinced these babies have got justice.

You know, if she’d actually stalked these parents, instead of just searching for some of them once or twice in a sea of searches. Or if she’d actually kept specific handover notes in a little keepsake box, instead of select notes taken from a massive pile of handover notes and other shift-related rubbish. Or if there actually was a confession, instead of a handful of tiny lines on one little post-it note taken from hundreds of other notes that said the opposite. Any of those would tip the balance for me in an instant. But nothing like that is coming. She didn’t even google anything.

If she is charged with further crimes and they appear to have merit maybe that’ll change things, who knows.

Sorry for the word vomit.

 

[May72031]

We don’t know what we don’t know.

Sounds like Donald Rumsfeld. That's simply an excuse for baseless speculation.

We also know they identified two doctors who were associated with a large portion of the deaths, but not all.

Is this another new conspiracy theory? What's the theory here? The doctor's were incompetent? Or perhaps it was actually them who were the murderers, and poor Lucy was "framed"? This would obviously mean a huge conspiracy involving dozens of people and numerous different departments/organisations!

We now know more about the true extent of the sewage problem

We're not still banging on about the "sewage" are we? Someone has been listening to John Sweeney too much, who is still insisting sewage was the issue, even though he has been told repeatedly that the babies did not die from infections.

I dread to think the pathogens these babies were continually exposed to.

There is no evidence they were exposed to any "pathogens".

Hospital wastewater is the mutant version of domestic wastewater

What?

in fact it’s not allowed to go anywhere near domestic wastewater because it needs special treatment. We know many people testified to noticeably poor hygiene practices. We don’t know if pathologists were told the babies had been exposed in this way.

There is no evidence the babies had been exposed to poor hygiene practices. Even If they were, it would not explain the spike in collapses and deaths.

We don’t know what was going on next door in the maternity ward. We do know the doctors worked there, and we know the NNU nurses would go there during births. We do know it was also experiencing an unusually high number of deaths, and we do know it was also a high risk zone for infection given the sewage leaks.

Again, there is no evidence of any infections from sewage.

I reckon you could manufacture a “Lucy Letby” in every hospital baby scandal up and down this country

No, you couldn't.

Bonus points if you limit your liability to some of the more egregious deaths by pinning it on the Letby.

But the hospital management did their best to protect Letby. That is the opposite of "pinning it on Letby." Again, if your "pinning it on Letby" conspiracy theory is true, it would involve dozens of people and numerous departments/organisations.

The plumber’s testimony should have been an absolute bombshell.

Oh, it was. Just not in the way you think. It was a bombshell when it turned it was the only defence expert called.

Why bother spending many more months hashing out made-up medical evidence based on incomplete records for multiple babies, when you can simply show that not only was this filthy hospital placing children and mothers at a completely unacceptable level of risk, it was concealing it.

What "made-up" medical evidence? Also, you can show filthy conditions exist in hospitals up and down the country. What you and Letby's supporters can't show, is that any babies were impacted by poor hygiene here.

Imagine that, a child like Baby C, weighing something like the equivalent of a 24 week gestation, trying to survive being exposed in that way. At COCH, sadly, the better you breathe the worse you get.

Absolutely no evidence this was the case. Many of the collapses happened suddenly, and often when the babies were making good progress and were expected to go home.

If anyone is charged with negligence manslaughter, it should be because of this, not because of ‘harbouring a murderer’.

Strange - isn't harbouring a murderer a serious issue? If you're going to charge management with negligence manslaughter for not tackling poor hygiene properly, expect hundreds of arrests up and down the country from hospitals across the land.

You know, if she’d actually stalked these parents, instead of just searching for some of them once or twice in a sea of searches. Or if she’d actually kept specific handover notes in a little keepsake box, instead of select notes taken from a massive pile of handover notes and other shift-related rubbish. Or if there actually was a confession, instead of a handful of tiny lines on one little post-it note taken from hundreds of other notes that said the opposite. Any of those would tip the balance for me in an instant. But nothing like that is coming. She didn’t even google anything.

It isn't like the movies.

 

[Sweeper2000]

spose its a good question. anyone know if the search efforts preceding the first trial were only cases which were highlighted by the docs or management or nursing services such as the royal college as suspect? I might take a guess and say that any upcoming charges will likely be harder to prove due to the length of time involved and them potentially not being flagged initially so the witnesses will have a harder time to recall and maybe even the med notes be less clear although i doubt the latter. not even sure how long they are stored for tbh as we are so far away more or less ten years + since the dates under review which would be 2015 and before.

not sure if this is comprehensive but

"How long do they keep my records?​

Your maternity records and your child’s records must be kept for 25 years after the birth of your child."

Your right to see your maternity records - Birthrights

Your right to see your maternity records Maternity records are kept through your pregnancy and birth. These may be paper (‘handheld records’ or ‘handheld notes’) or electronic (‘digital care records’). The NHS in England aims that everyone will use electronic records by 2023/4. Everyone who...

birthrights.org.uk

ahhhh i think it was said by many the years 15/16 seemed to be her peak years for it. so maybe the new charges may fill in the blanks and show her descent into the depths of a very dark place indeed.

 

[WaneLyrical]

Sounds like Donald Rumsfeld. That's simply an excuse for baseless speculation.

Is this another new conspiracy theory? What's the theory here? The doctor's were incompetent? Or perhaps it was actually them who were the murderers, and poor Lucy was "framed"? This would obviously mean a huge conspiracy involving dozens of people and numerous different departments/organisations!

We're not still banging on about the "sewage" are we? Someone has been listening to John Sweeney too much, who is still insisting sewage was the issue, even though he has been told repeatedly that the babies did not die from infections.

There is no evidence they were exposed to any "pathogens".

What?

There is no evidence the babies had been exposed to poor hygiene practices. Even If they were, it would not explain the spike in collapses and deaths.

Again, there is no evidence of any infections from sewage.

No, you couldn't.

But the hospital management did their best to protect Letby. That is the opposite of "pinning it on Letby." Again, if your "pinning it on Letby" conspiracy theory is true, it would involve dozens of people and numerous departments/organisations.

Oh, it was. Just not in the way you think. It was a bombshell when it turned it was the only defence expert called.

What "made-up" medical evidence? Also, you can show filthy conditions exist in hospitals up and down the country. What you and Letby's supporters can't show, is that any babies were impacted by poor hygiene here.

Absolutely no evidence this was the case. Many of the collapses happened suddenly, and often when the babies were making good progress and were expected to go home.

Strange - isn't harbouring a murderer a serious issue? If you're going to charge management with negligence manslaughter for not tackling poor hygiene properly, expect hundreds of arrests up and down the country from hospitals across the land.

It isn't like the movies.

You are the one that sounds like a conspiracy theorist.

 

[May72031]

You are the one that sounds like a conspiracy theorist.

What would my conspiracy theory be?

 

[katydid23]

The points being made are two-fold though. There’s one argument being made that the test is not reliable or of forensic quality. Fair enough, not sure how much it truly matters.

But the second point is even if the test was reliable, the inference drawn during the trial was erroneous. What I would like to see is a comparison of results with other premature babies who’ve been screened as a result of hypoglycaemia, to see whether these two really are outliers. Comparing their results to adults is meaningless, it if is known that other substances in a premature baby are known to bind to the insulin/ assay.

The question still boils down to why did the babies have hypoglycaemia. There are many reasons for this that do not involve insulin, e.g. sepsis. We know from what we’ve been told about how the investigation unfolded that these cases were assumed to be poisoning in hindsight, with very little attention paid to them at the time.

So the question still boils down to: can these episodes of hypoglycaemia be explained by anything other than poisoning. If the answer is yes, then it follows that the jury was misled.

In both of these insulin cases, of Baby's E and L, the babies were attacked the day after their twin was murdered or assaulted. I find that highly unusual and too coincidental.



"She is alleged to have intentionally added insulin to Child F’s intravenous feed bag on a night shift in August 2015, less than 24 hours after she allegedly murdered his twin brother, Child E.

She is accused of trying to kill Child L in April 2016, around the same time she allegedly tried to murder his twin brother, Child M, by injecting air into his bloodstream."

Lucy Letby tells court poisoning of two babies with insulin was not by her

Nurse claims she was blamed by ‘gang of four’ consultants for alleged attacks on Child F and L at Countess of Chester hospital

www.theguardian.com

 

[katydid23]

Is there anything at all suspicious about Baby L if those insulin/c-pep readings weren’t present?

One thing 'suspicious' about Baby L was that his twin brother, Baby M, had a sudden collapse at the same time, which was later found to be air pumped into his blood stream.

There was a long pattern of twins and triplets having sudden inexplicable collapses, but from differing causes---- the only factor in common was Nurse Letby.

Hypoglycaemia present at birth, persisting for 2 days, resolved once the infusion was increased accordingly (to 15% I think). Shoo Lee is saying it’s a normal case of hypoglycaemia in an infant, the dextrose given and/or the rate wasn’t sufficient to resolve it, but once it got there it resolved immediately. He’s critical of the staff for not increasing the dextrose sooner.

Or is this presentation so completely unusual that it makes more sense that a nurse poisoned 5 bags to create low level hypoglycaemia drama when she wasn’t on shift?

 

[katydid23]

He's wrong about it being inappropriate to comment due to any potential appeal. There is no appeal at all in the works; she currently has no right to appeal anything at all so there is no potential sub-judice consideration.

Even if there were an appeal likely to be granted, that is in front of judges who are deemed not to be subject to influence from public statements. But, it hasn't been so irrelevant.

Similarly, as regards the ongoing investigation and the possibility of further charges; same thing, proceedings are not "active" (she hasn't been arrested, let alone charged) so there is no possibility of any any contempt issues.

Edit: although he may have a point if he were likely to be advising the prosecution or in the frame to be a witness.

I can understand why he wouldn't want to comment. They are trying to lure him into a maelstrom and it would not go well for him to try and carry on a rational discussion with them. IMO

 

[JosieJo]

RSBM

Yes. Exactly. This is my exact issue with this case. We don’t know what we don’t know.

But it’s looking increasingly like this investigation was botched from the very start.

We do know from thirlwall that the management attempted (somewhat) to do this, we have those charts showing the trends in acuity, intensive care hours etc etc, all showing for the period in question the unit was bursting at the seams.

We also know they identified two doctors who were associated with a large portion of the deaths, but not all.

We now know more about the true extent of the sewage problem, they were using pads to absorb the sewage in the ceiling, and raw sewage was splattered in close proximity to the incubators (with no cleaners around). I dread to think the pathogens these babies were continually exposed to, the build up on every surface and instrument. Is there anything more vulnerable than a premature baby?

Hospital wastewater is the mutant version of domestic wastewater, in fact it’s not allowed to go anywhere near domestic wastewater because it needs special treatment. We know many people testified to noticeably poor hygiene practices. We don’t know if pathologists were told the babies had been exposed in this way.

We know what the royal college report said, I don’t recall it mentioning the sewage but I could be wrong. We do know the hospital was selective in what it recorded, both on the sewage, and in general (“I wish I’d recorded the rash, I wish I’d recorded walking in on an attempted murder, all emails cease”). It would seem that things which might open the hospital up to potential liability are less likely to be recorded.

We don’t know what was going on next door in the maternity ward. We do know the doctors worked there, and we know the NNU nurses would go there during births. We do know it was also experiencing an unusually high number of deaths, and we do know it was also a high risk zone for infection given the sewage leaks.

We don’t know anything about the “other” next door, the paediatric unit. We do know the doctors’ time was taken up almost exclusively by it.

The list goes on and on and on.

I reckon you could manufacture a “Lucy Letby” in every hospital baby scandal up and down this country, by selecting a limited amount of information and presenting it in a certain way, then putting a twist on all innocent behaviour of the accused. Bonus points if you limit your liability to some of the more egregious deaths by pinning it on the Letby.

The plumber’s testimony should have been an absolute bombshell. Why bother spending many more months hashing out made-up medical evidence based on incomplete records for multiple babies, when you can simply show that not only was this filthy hospital placing children and mothers at a completely unacceptable level of risk, it was concealing it. Imagine that, a child like Baby C, weighing something like the equivalent of a 24 week gestation, trying to survive being exposed in that way. At COCH, sadly, the better you breathe the worse you get.

If anyone is charged with negligence manslaughter, it should be because of this, not because of ‘harbouring a murderer’.

Anyway, this is why I maintain an interest in this case. My mind can’t rest until some of the unanswered questions are answered. Right now I’m not convinced these babies have got justice.

You know, if she’d actually stalked these parents, instead of just searching for some of them once or twice in a sea of searches. Or if she’d actually kept specific handover notes in a little keepsake box, instead of select notes taken from a massive pile of handover notes and other shift-related rubbish. Or if there actually was a confession, instead of a handful of tiny lines on one little post-it note taken from hundreds of other notes that said the opposite. Any of those would tip the balance for me in an instant. But nothing like that is coming. She didn’t even google anything.

If she is charged with further crimes and they appear to have merit maybe that’ll change things, who knows.

Sorry for the word vomit.

But the babies didn't have infection from sewage...infection is not silent...and for babies to reach the point of collapse from infection it would have been visible for some time

 

[marynnu]

But they seemed to flip flop all over the place. They started a 10% infusion when the sugars were 1.9 (set up by Letby, but not yet poisoned) and then we have the following readings over the next 12 hours:
2.5
5.8
3.3
2.3
2.2
3.6

I'm not sure what your point is with this?

 

[marynnu]

I can understand why he wouldn't want to comment. They are trying to lure him into a maelstrom and it would not go well for him to try and carry on a rational discussion with them. IMO

Absolutely. No doubt he has seen the vicious (bordering on libellous) character assassinations re. Dr. Evans & the consultants. He has nothing to prove.

 

[joltz]

No one caught Charles Cullen spiking IV bags with insulin either…

Charles Cullen - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

And they talk like this sort of thing just couldn't happen, but it already has, multiple times.

 

[joltz]

No, they keep telling us that's just a coincidence. Any other links that show Letby in a suspicious light is just us putting blame onto her because we think shes a baby murderer.

So if you decide she's not a baby murderer, things like: Letby hanging meds in both cases, being one of only 2 staff capable of being culprit , being wrongly convicted for attacks on both twins siblings, both siblings suffering "unexpected collapses" Letby recording the only normal blood/gas reading right before she leaves, Letby being told prior to the first insulin they she needed a break from it always being her, when baby collapses and dies.

These things can just be written off as simply unfortunate coincidences.

Then just do this again, for every other charge that Letby was convicted for and you will realise, it was just an extremely long set of unfortunate coincidences for super nurse Letby.

 

[Tortoise]

RSBM

Yes. Exactly. This is my exact issue with this case. We don’t know what we don’t know.

But it’s looking increasingly like this investigation was botched from the very start.

We do know from thirlwall that the management attempted (somewhat) to do this, we have those charts showing the trends in acuity, intensive care hours etc etc, all showing for the period in question the unit was bursting at the seams.

We also know they identified two doctors who were associated with a large portion of the deaths, but not all.

We now know more about the true extent of the sewage problem, they were using pads to absorb the sewage in the ceiling, and raw sewage was splattered in close proximity to the incubators (with no cleaners around). I dread to think the pathogens these babies were continually exposed to, the build up on every surface and instrument. Is there anything more vulnerable than a premature baby?

Hospital wastewater is the mutant version of domestic wastewater, in fact it’s not allowed to go anywhere near domestic wastewater because it needs special treatment. We know many people testified to noticeably poor hygiene practices. We don’t know if pathologists were told the babies had been exposed in this way.

We know what the royal college report said, I don’t recall it mentioning the sewage but I could be wrong. We do know the hospital was selective in what it recorded, both on the sewage, and in general (“I wish I’d recorded the rash, I wish I’d recorded walking in on an attempted murder, all emails cease”). It would seem that things which might open the hospital up to potential liability are less likely to be recorded.

We don’t know what was going on next door in the maternity ward. We do know the doctors worked there, and we know the NNU nurses would go there during births. We do know it was also experiencing an unusually high number of deaths, and we do know it was also a high risk zone for infection given the sewage leaks.

We don’t know anything about the “other” next door, the paediatric unit. We do know the doctors’ time was taken up almost exclusively by it.

The list goes on and on and on.

I reckon you could manufacture a “Lucy Letby” in every hospital baby scandal up and down this country, by selecting a limited amount of information and presenting it in a certain way, then putting a twist on all innocent behaviour of the accused. Bonus points if you limit your liability to some of the more egregious deaths by pinning it on the Letby.

The plumber’s testimony should have been an absolute bombshell. Why bother spending many more months hashing out made-up medical evidence based on incomplete records for multiple babies, when you can simply show that not only was this filthy hospital placing children and mothers at a completely unacceptable level of risk, it was concealing it. Imagine that, a child like Baby C, weighing something like the equivalent of a 24 week gestation, trying to survive being exposed in that way. At COCH, sadly, the better you breathe the worse you get.

If anyone is charged with negligence manslaughter, it should be because of this, not because of ‘harbouring a murderer’.

Anyway, this is why I maintain an interest in this case. My mind can’t rest until some of the unanswered questions are answered. Right now I’m not convinced these babies have got justice.

You know, if she’d actually stalked these parents, instead of just searching for some of them once or twice in a sea of searches. Or if she’d actually kept specific handover notes in a little keepsake box, instead of select notes taken from a massive pile of handover notes and other shift-related rubbish. Or if there actually was a confession, instead of a handful of tiny lines on one little post-it note taken from hundreds of other notes that said the opposite. Any of those would tip the balance for me in an instant. But nothing like that is coming. She didn’t even google anything.

If she is charged with further crimes and they appear to have merit maybe that’ll change things, who knows.

Sorry for the word vomit.

What drove the consultants to want an investigation, when the hospital wasn't inquisitive and the parents weren't pursuing complaints, or aware of anything sinister or even negligent?

What sort of google searches do you think Letby would have needed to make?

There's a bit more than handover sheets, facebook searches and her confession note. As well as covering her tracks with falsified nursing notes for things like fictitious breathing support and false datix regarding IV access and a text about risk of air embolism, she had made coded notes in her 2016 diary, for babies L, M, O, P and Q (that's the extent I am aware of, there may have been others) -
- pre-dating her removal from the unit
- at a time she didn't know non-fatal collapses would be investigated or that there would be a police investigation
- she didn't know which babies' collapses and deaths the experts would deem suspicious
- she wasn't designated nurse for babies L & M on the day of their assaults and had looked after many other babies on those days and that year.

 

[CatsnChickens]

The flaws in medical evidence on all sides of the Lucy Letby case

Barrister Mark McDonald claims to have the backing of a panel of world class experts who say there is no evidence any babies were deliberately harmed

www.bbc.co.uk

BBC documentary tonight. It claims to be looking at both angles so we will see

 

[Parker Knoll]

It’s already on iplayer if anyone wants to watch it earlier.

 

[Sweeper2000]

anyone watch that documentary? kinda seems par for the course to me but i would go back tot he prosecutions main point, unexplained and sudden collapses that do not respond to normal treatment as expected.

 

[Charlot123]

It was unthinkable to you. Not the police, the court, the trial expert, and most of us here at Websleuths.

You as me are random people on the Internet.

The police’s work is questionable; one wonders if the LEO went along with the opinion of whomever they considered very educated doctors, I suspect. One of them also a celebrity.

Regarding the trial expert…

Access Restricted

“ several months into the trial.. Another judge, Mr Justice Jackson, sent an email to the judge in the Letby case, alerting him to a decision he had made in a different case in which he was extremely critical of a report Dr Evans had written as an expert witness.

‘No effort to provide a balanced opinion’
… ‘‘makes no effort to provide a balanced opinion”. He added the report ‘‘has the hallmarks of an exercise in working out an explanation that exculpates the applicants” with “partisan expressions of opinion that are outside Dr Evans’ professional competence and have no place in a reputable expert report”.

This is not “character assassination” that people on WS are complaining about. (Character seppuku is what Evans himself did when he yapped about decriminalized certain offenses.) Here, it is a judge’s opinion about Evans as the trial witness.

Why didn’t Justice Goss let his main trial witness go? Remains to be asked of Justice Goss.

But whom does the case benefit now? The infection on the unit, the poor sanitary condition, it is all in front pages. It opens COCH to a lot more.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Yes I watched it sweep.
Not really much to say as it brought absolutely nothing that we have not heard before or has been dealt with through the correct channels.
McDonald is an utter joke and I love that for her.

 

[JosieJo]

The Documentary made me wonder ...has it been made public which two of "The 14" looked at which baby ? ...also if a 3rd person was needed to obtain an "agreed report" report who was it ? Same person every time ? Or not