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

[joltz]

New DM article "Did Letby attack 100 other babies"


It's DM plus only, but can be read here

PressReader.com - Digital Newspaper & Magazine Subscriptions

Digital newsstand featuring 7000+ of the world’s most popular newspapers & magazines. Enjoy unlimited reading on up to 5 devices with 7-day free trial.

www.pressreader.com

Some interesting bits of information here.

 

[joe jones]

I now firmly believe she is innocent, the expert medical opinion at trial would have needed experts to understand it not layperson jurors, and medical experts would have understood the lack of evidence,
I do think she will eventually be exonerated but it will take a long time as the DPP will fight very hard not to have her conviction overturned,

 

[Baileyboo]

I now firmly believe she is innocent, the expert medical opinion at trial would have needed experts to understand it not layperson jurors, and medical experts would have understood the lack of evidence,
I do think she will eventually be exonerated but it will take a long time as the DPP will fight very hard not to have her conviction overturned,

If the medical experts knew there were flaws in the evidence then they should have been called by the defence. The issue was the defence couldn't find any experts to reliably stand up in court and show there was no deliberate harm.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Really interesting podcast with Dr Hall and if you can give it a listen then do HOWEVER he continuously rows back when challenged and agreed himself that he would if called would have stated that he couldn’t rule out an injection of air by a member of staff so I can see why he wasn’t involved.

It’s also tedious that he’s claiming it’s all circumstantial and nobody saw her do anything ( Doh … that’s generally the idea when you are a serial killer ) and the jury basically couldn’t understand the medical evidence which he deemed “ dull “ in any event.

In fairness he makes interesting points about Baby A’s x ray showing gas and respiratory rates so if anyone can throw some light on that that would be helpful … is he correct ?

 

[marynnu]

Really interesting podcast with Dr Hall and if you can give it a listen then do HOWEVER he continuously rows back when challenged and agreed himself that he would if called would have stated that he couldn’t rule out an injection of air by a member of staff so I can see why he wasn’t involved.

It’s also tedious that he’s claiming it’s all circumstantial and nobody saw her do anything ( Doh … that’s generally the idea when you are a serial killer ) and the jury basically couldn’t understand the medical evidence which he deemed “ dull “ in any event.

In fairness he makes interesting points about Baby A’s x ray showing gas and respiratory rates so if anyone can throw some light on that that would be helpful … is he correct ?

I can't believe he mentioned her not being seen because there are usually srveral people in a room! Complete nonsense as we all know.
Regarding Baby A's tachypnoea, I found this rather puzzling. He implies people weren't taking it seriously, but the baby was on continuous monitoring and regular blood gases. He didn't even need oxygen. I don't presume to have any medical knowledge, but from a nurse experience perspective I must have seen hundreds of babies like this. Worst case scenario is that they get tired. This is reflected in deteriorating blood gases and/or apnoeic episodes. Certainly not cardiac arrest & death. If the baby isn't coping you comnence CPAP or even ventilation.

 

[katydid23]

This whole ' No one saw anything happen' argument falls flat for me.

Baby E's mother has some solid evidence proving her claims that she walked in to the nursery with breast milk, to feed her baby, and heard him screaming in pain, AND BLEEDING FROIM HIS MOUTH. Nurse Lucy was standing there, and demanded the mother leave, and lied to her, claiming that she had already called a doctor for help.

During the trial, Baby E's mom had evidence proving she had called her husband crying, immediately after her 9 pm visit to the nursery. They both testified about the incident, and she had her phone records corroborating the timeline.

It was shown in court that Lucy lied about that timeline, pretended the baby was never seen by his mother, bleeding from the mouth. Letby denied that ever happened, denied the baby was bleeding from his mouth at 9 pm, and her falsified medical logs claimed the mother never arrived at 9 pm with milk, and she even changed her medical logs to claim that a doctor cancelled the scheduled feeding at 9 pm.

ALL OF THE ABOVE was shown in court---Lucy was caught lying about the feed being cancelled, by a doctor and was lying about the mother never arriving to see her baby bleeding and screaming.

Both parents testified under oath and had their phone records, to show thaT Mom did arrive at 9 pm with milk, and did see her boy bleeding and screaming. She even told a mid wife about it after it happened.

And just hours later, her baby bled out and died, losing 1/4 of his total blood supply in a massive unexplained hermmorhage.

Lucy did not call for help at 9 pm, as she had assured the mother. In fact, she never told anyone that the child was bleeding from his mouth. At about 9:45 pm she messaged the attending Dr that a baby had flecks of blood in his vomit and diaper, and so the doctor eventually came to observe him. By that time he was in a collapsed state from loss of blood already.

So this false narrative that 'NO ONE SAW ANYTHING' falls flat for me. I saw that poor inconsolable mother on the witness stand, describing what happened when she walked in on Nurse Lucy after she had assaulted her child. Nurse Lucy even said " TRUST ME, I'M A NURSE' ---as she demanded the mother go back to her room.

 

[Parker Knoll]

I can't believe he mentioned her not being seen because there are usually srveral people in a room! Complete nonsense as we all know.
Regarding Baby A's tachypnoea, I found this rather puzzling. He implies people weren't taking it seriously, but the baby was on continuous monitoring and regular blood gases. He didn't even need oxygen. I don't presume to have any medical knowledge, but from a nurse experience perspective I must have seen hundreds of babies like this. Worst case scenario is that they get tired. This is reflected in deteriorating blood gases and/or apnoeic episodes. Certainly not cardiac arrest & death. If the baby isn't coping you comnence CPAP or even ventilation.

Thanks Mary.

 

[joltz]

I now firmly believe she is innocent, the expert medical opinion at trial would have needed experts to understand it not layperson jurors, and medical experts would have understood the lack of evidence,
I do think she will eventually be exonerated but it will take a long time as the DPP will fight very hard not to have her conviction overturned,

.

 

[joltz]

I now firmly believe she is innocent, the expert medical opinion at trial would have needed experts to understand it not layperson jurors, and medical experts would have understood the lack of evidence,
I do think she will eventually be exonerated but it will take a long time as the DPP will fight very hard not to have her conviction overturned,

.

I didn't this argument makes no sense. We have followed the case from day 1 and understand what happened. The evidence was explained so laypersons such as the jury could understand.

What lack of evidence?

The prosecution was backed by a multitude of experts in their fields. 2 years later and the defence still can't find experts of equal standing and still cannot offer credible alternatives. The expert panel, Dr Hall, and others can't even agree with each other on the alternative suggestions. They can't even put together cohesive alternatives and Dr Hall has basically said that he would have agreed with the prosecution on multiple counts and not been able to rebuff others.

This has nothing to do with a jury understanding the evidence.

Not sure what sources you have been reading to decide you firmly believe she is innocent but I would suggest you've been taken in by the steady streak of misinformation perpetuated across the media.

Shes not innocent, its not a MOJ, not by a log shot.

I would confidently state that the chances of Letby being exonerated stand at ZERO. literally no chance whatsoever.

JMO

 

[Jules2021]

Really interesting podcast with Dr Hall and if you can give it a listen then do HOWEVER he continuously rows back when challenged and agreed himself that he would if called would have stated that he couldn’t rule out an injection of air by a member of staff so I can see why he wasn’t involved.

It’s also tedious that he’s claiming it’s all circumstantial and nobody saw her do anything ( Doh … that’s generally the idea when you are a serial killer ) and the jury basically couldn’t understand the medical evidence which he deemed “ dull “ in any event.

In fairness he makes interesting points about Baby A’s x ray showing gas and respiratory rates so if anyone can throw some light on that that would be helpful … is he correct ?

He kept saying just because you can't explain something doesn't mean it's murder, and it's like well murder does explain it? If it was natural causes surely there WOULD be an explanation? It was an interesting listen though for sure.

 

[Sweeper2000]

He kept saying just because you can't explain something doesn't mean it's murder, and it's like well murder does explain it? If it was natural causes surely there WOULD be an explanation? It was an interesting listen though for sure.

I would disagree with that although I understand. Murders have medical reasons for causing illegal death ie severe blood loss, catastrophic brain damage or oxygen deprivation its proving what caused it that makes it what we define it as. All of those things can also be caused by natural causes such as hemorrhage due to platelet deficiency, brain damage caused by a fall or oxygen deprivation due to hemoglobin deficiency which are All natural.

 

[Parker Knoll]

We had that analogy in the trial though … anything could be possible but was it probable ?

People are tying themselves in knots trying to think of an alternative to the fact that a nurse murdered babies … it’s staggering.

 

[Jules2021]

I would disagree with that although I understand. Murders have medical reasons for causing illegal death ie severe blood loss, catastrophic brain damage or oxygen deprivation its proving what caused it that makes it what we define it as. All of those things can also be caused by natural causes such as hemorrhage due to platelet deficiency, brain damage caused by a fall or oxygen deprivation due to hemoglobin deficiency which are All natural.

But those are all examples of the type of thing he could've said to explain things but didn't. My point was for some of the babies at least it seems like he has NO natural explanation at all.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I now firmly believe she is innocent, the expert medical opinion at trial would have needed experts to understand it not layperson jurors, and medical experts would have understood the lack of evidence,
I do think she will eventually be exonerated but it will take a long time as the DPP will fight very hard not to have her conviction overturned,

It doesn't require an expert jury to understand the medical evidence. I understand it just fine and I'm not remotely medically trained. What we heard via media reports will be only a summary of how it was explained to the jury. They will have had it set out in detailed but understandable layman's terms in order to comprehend it. Barristers are trained to do just that and they had months and months to do it.

The telling thing is that they didn't convict her on every count as some they couldn't reach a decision. If they genuinely didn't understand it then I'd have expected them to fail to reach verdicts on far more or to acquit her.

The defence had every opportunity to call their own experts to refute the prosecution evidence or to call into question how it was presented. They didn't. I think we all know why they didn't.

There was no "lack of evidence". We heard nine months or so of evidence and the jury spent weeks deliberating it. It was one of the longest, most evidence hungry trials in British legal history.

 

[Marantz4250b]

We had that analogy in the trial though … anything could be possible but was it probable ?

People are tying themselves in knots trying to think of an alternative to the fact that a nurse murdered babies … it’s staggering.

And, this is the real problem! People are falling into X-Files mode "I want to believe", rather than forming a belief based on the preponderance of the evidence.

Her supporters are starting out from the position that she's innocent and trying to dream up scenarios and evidence which supports that rather than examining the evidence and seeing where it logically takes them. It's classic conspiracy theory nonsense, quite frankly.

 

[Parker Knoll]

I know cases always attract crazies but this one has been something else.
The appeal is going nowhere and so is she.

 

[joltz]

I know cases always attract crazies but this one has been something else.
The appeal is going nowhere and so is she.

Absolutely. I'm sick of hearing the crazies repeating that the expert panel have apparently destroyed the case. The expert panel is a joke, they are literally shoo Lee's buddies getting an email stating Letby is a MOJ and this is her last chance, please help basically. All they have done is offer up alternative explanations. But the explanations just don't make any sense and are not based on the evidence presented at trial, they actually don't even take the evidence into consideration. They discount anything that makes Letby look guilty. They completely ignore the links between these babies.

How can any logical person take their conclusions as fact? Can you imagine if these people actually had to be cross examined in a courtroom. Theres no way it would ever get that far. They would be taken to pieces. For a start their opinions have all been formed with an inherited bias. Dr Lee has basically set the task where they cannot find Letby guilty. They don't even consider air embolism. They only consider the medical notes and none of the evidence presented at trial. They were working with a fraction of the evidence and none of the stuff that makes Letby look guilty.

Any person that tries to suggest Letby is innocent based on this panels findings cannot be taken seriously.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

We had that analogy in the trial though … anything could be possible but was it probable ?

People are tying themselves in knots trying to think of an alternative to the fact that a nurse murdered babies … it’s staggering.

Yes, it is normal to assume, at first, that there is a medical explanation. No one automatically assumes that a nurse or doctor is assaulting newborns.

And that is how Nurse Lucy got away with it for so long. Sweet, nice Lucy, even though she was the unlucky nurse that was present during the first few unexpected collapses, she was seen as one of the victims too.

No-one would imagine that nice Lucy could secretly murder babies in her care. Nurse Letby was busy making the Memory books, and bathing the deceased babies and dressing them to take photos to give the parents. Nurse Lucy was the most calm and collected nurse in the resuscitations, and received praise for her conduct. Nurse Lucy sacrificed her weekends and off-days, and always accepted extra shift work, as a good dedicated nurse. Even after her co-workers noticed her 'bad luck' of being the one to experience losing some of her babies, on back to back nights, and they suggested she take a break from the most vulnerable patients, Nurse Lucy wouldn't hear of it. She insisted that she continue, and seemed offended that her co-workers even suggested it.

 

[StargateONeill]

I now firmly believe she is innocent, the expert medical opinion at trial would have needed experts to understand it not layperson jurors, and medical experts would have understood the lack of evidence,
I do think she will eventually be exonerated but it will take a long time as the DPP will fight very hard not to have her conviction overturned,

Of all the people the gang of 4 pointed their fingers at, how unfortunate it happened to because nurse with huge stashes of patient identifiable data under her bed. How unlucky she was also caught tampering with data, making Datix reports after events and not swiping in and also be the nurse that made so many parents uncomfortable etc (imagine how different it would be if it were Melanie for example who the doctors first had suspicions about). I could go on.

Dr Shoo and colleagues by making such a public display means they wont be credible witnesses to appeal judges should there be a need.

Do you have a theory on why so many babies who were stable passed away at that hospital?

 

[Marantz4250b]

Do you have a theory on why so many babies who were stable passed away at that hospital?

And here is the real question; there are a legion of folks who are ascribing these deaths and collapses to "bad care", "incompetence", "hygiene related matters" and other things. The problem they have is that these are just words. They never say specifically how the deaths and collapses occurred - by what particular infection or physical mistake or negligence they succumbed?

You cannot put forward a rational case for an alternative theory if you don't say what that theory is. And they never do.

The closest we have come to any medical explanation is the ridiculous statement Dr Lee gave relating to a condition supposedly contracted from the mother. This is a direct re-hash of something specifically addressed and comprehensively dismissed at trial. The defence accepted that it was not the case and that it did not happen so why is he bringing it up again? Because he has been gaslighted into saying it and has no idea that it had already been dealt with and dismissed, is why!